Karnataka Court July 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum Vs. Brij Mohan Pailya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1991
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT35(Kar)
1. Three gold bars of primary gold weighing 2132 Gms. were seized by the Central Excise Officers at Hubli Railway Station from the possession of one Brijmohan Pailya who is none other the first respondent herein. The seizure was on 17-11-1984. Statements of three persons were recorded by the Superintendent of Central Excise and further investigation was taken up by the department. On completion of that investigation, show cause notices dated 13-2-1985 as required under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were issued to the respondents herein. They were despatched by registered post on 22-2-1985. All these notices were returned due to non-availability of the addressees. Thereupon the show cause notices were sent to the Assistant Collector, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh on 18-3-1985 in order to effect service on the respondents. They were ultimately got served on the respondents on 18-5-1985. 2. These facts are beyond controversy. When adjudication was sou...
Sree Venugopal Swamy and Co. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)KarLJ599; [1993]89STC547(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of section 5(3-C) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, ('the Act', for short) as substituted by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1986, with effect from April 1, 1986. The impugned provision reads thus : '(3-C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), in the case of sale of any of the goods mentioned in column (2) of the Eighth Schedule which has already been subjected to tax under clause (a) of sub-section (3) by a dealer liable to tax under this Act, a tax at the rate specified in the corresponding entry of column (3) of the said Schedule shall be levied at the point of last sale in the State on the taxable turnover of sales of such dealer in each year relating to such goods.' 2. The petitioner is a dealer in refined oil found as item No. 9 in the Eighth Schedule to the Act. It also found a place at the same time as item No. 35 in the Second Schedule to the Act. According to the petitioner it...
Sathu D'souza Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (intelligence), Bellary and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2637
S. Mohan, C.J.1. The short question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the notice issued against the appellant under section 28-AA(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act read with rule 23F(2) and (3) of Rules, in No. CTO/INT/BLY/90-91 dated 9th January, 1991, proposing to levy tax of Rs. 29,700 as well as notice of even dated proposing to levy penalty of Rs. 9,000 are valid in law We may also add, for the sake of convenience, pursuant to this proposal notice the appellant filed his detailed explanation. On consideration of all that explanation, by order dated 15th April, 1991, under assessment No. 1/90-91, the assessment has been made as under : 'Order under section 28-AA(5) of the Act, 1957. The goods vehicle which failed to deliver the transit passes issued to the driver on 18th December, 1990, and consequently notice under section 28-AA(5) was issued and served on the owner of the vehicle on 17th February, 1991. The learned Advocate representing the goods vehicle...
Moulasaheb Lalesaheb Mulla Vs. Aminsha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR247; 1991(4)KarLJ125
Murlidher Rao, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 186 of 1974 and appellant in R.A. No. 74 of 1980 has filed this appeal. Respondent was the plaintiff. She filed a suit for specific performance alleging that the defendant had agreed to sell RS No. 90/2 and his share in RS No. 139 of Alahalli village for Rs. 6,000/-. In pursuance of that agreement he received a sum of Rs. 3,200/- in two instalments. The period stipulated for execution of the sale deed was three years. Plaintiff instituted the suit on 9-7-1974 alleging that the defendant went on postponing the execution of the sale deed. Ultimately she issued a notice on 24-6-1974 which was replied by the defendant on 1 -7-1974 thereby refusing to honour the agreement of sale. Plaintiff sought for a decree of specific performance of contract in the alternative for the refund of the amount with costs and damages. Defendant denied the agreement of sale and maintained that the plaintiff is not an agriculturist by profession, as suc...
G.K. Thirunarayana Iyengar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4070; 1991(3)KarLJ395
ORDERB.P. Singh, J. 1. The sole question which arises for consideration in the instant Writ Petition is whether the respondents are justified in continuing the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner even after his superannuation from service on 29th December 1989, without extension of his services.2. The facts of the case are few and not in dispute.The petitioner was employed as the Manager of the Davangere Branch of the second respondent viz., the Karnataka Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 30A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, the third respondent viz., the Special Officer was appointed by the Government to manage the second respondent after superseding the Co-operative Society. It is not disputed that presently the Special Officer of the Bank is incharge of the management of the society.3. A report was made on the 17th March 1987 to the effect that five employees of the Davangere Branch of the second respondent Bank, incl...
Sampathkumar Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4030; 1991(3)KarLJ604
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. It is not in dispute that two survey numbers viz., Sy. No. 23 of Bidalur village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District measuring 2-10 guntas and Sy. No. 39 of Kodihalli village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District measuring 30 guntas are endowed upon the village office Talari of these two villages. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 being the holders of the village office at the relevant point of time, were enjoying these lands by discharging their duties as such. 2. Out of the two survey numbers referred to above, in Sy. No. 23, 0-38 guntas came to be sold in favour of one Subhadramma as far back as in the year 1967. It appears that it came to be sold with the permission of the Competent Authority. Therefore, in this Petition, we are not concerned with the said survey number. 3. Out of the land in Sy. No. 39, 30 guntas of wet land came to be sold by respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the petitioner -Sampathkumar under a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1991
Reported in: (1991)100CTR(Kar)207; [1992]195ITR66(KAR); [1992]195ITR66(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The Revenue seeks the following two questions to be referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of bad and doubtful debts relating to advances made by the rural branches to the extent of Rs. 1,45,14,126 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who deleted the addition of Rs. 12,16,33,177 being the interest accrued relatable to the period ended December 31, 1981, but becoming payable after December 31, 1981 ?' 2. The first question was held against the Revenue by the Tribunal on the ground that, actually, the axis-bank had made a provision for the entire sum and that the sum did not exceed the ceilin...
Nanje Gowda Vs. Channe Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3978
ORDERRamachandriah, J. 1. This Revision Petition filed by the tenant under Section 115 C.P.C. is not yet admitted as the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord raised a preliminary objection that this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable as the tenant has not deposited the rents due by him either at the time of the filing of this revision petition or subsequently. So, Sri Chandrasekharaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord, are heard on that point. 2. Sri Chandrasekharaiah contended that the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') are not applicable to Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 C.P.C. and, therefore, it is not open to the respondent-landlord to contend that this revision petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-deposit of arrears of rent as required under Section 29(1) of the Act, which reads as under: '29. DEPOSIT AND P...
Dr. A.S. Rashid Ahmed Vs. Gopalakrishna Kamath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3648; 1992(1)KarLJ195
ORDERRamachandriah, J.1. This 5 year old Revision Petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C. arises out of an eviction petition filed by one Dr. A.S. Rashid Ahmed of Mangalore nearly 20 years back in H.R.C.No. 17/1971 in the Court of the Munsiff, Karkala (for short 'the Munsiff' or 'the trial Court') against the respondents seeking their eviction under Clause (h) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act1) from eviction petition, schedule house-cum-landed property situate near the Munsiff's Court, Karkala and described in the eviction petition Schedule 'A' as tiled storeyed house (bearing Door No. 539/Ward II of Karkala Town Panchayat) including well yards and other appurtenances, situate near the Munsiff's Court, Karkala Kasba of Karkala Taluk (for short 'the premises'). The litigation initiated by filing the said eviction petition has had a chequered career during the past 20 years. Original petitioner-landlord having die...
National Airport Authority, Delhi Vs. Bangalore Airport Service Coop. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2619; 1991(2)KarLJ287; (1992)IILLJ534Kant
Hanumanthappa, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3513 of 1986, dated 30th June 1986 confirming the order passed by the Labour Court (Central), Bangalore, in CCA No. 2 of 1984, dated January 29, 1986 whereby the application was allowed directing the 1st appellant to pay arrears of wages to the applicants as claimed in the application with a further direction that the 1st appellant is at liberty to recover the same from the 1st respondent herein. 2. A few facts are : Applicants 50 in number filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein referred to as the Act) seeking, for computation of amounts due to them on the ground that they were working as porters under the 1st respondents herein at Bangalore Airport. The 2nd appellant was overall in-charge of the Bangalore Airport. The services at the Bangalore Airport, viz., the Porterage Services, we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »