Karnataka Court September 1991 Judgments

Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR3789; 1991(3)KarLJ609

ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium metal and has a smeltor complex at Belgaum, It is alleged that in response to 'An Invitation to Investors in Industry' published by the Government of Karnataka in 1966, the petitioners set up a smeltor complex and an aluminium plant at Belgaum on the basis of the assurances given by the State Government in the said brochure. An agreement was entered into between the 1st petitioner, the State Government and the State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 26-3-1966 for supply of electric power at a fixed rate for the duration of the agreement. In the said agreement provision was made for supply of power at a fixed rate with electricity tax at stipulated rate for a period of 25 years with an option for renewal for a further period of 25 years. On the basis of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement, it is claimed by the 1st petitioner, that it set up the complex...

Krishnappa Vs. State

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR3843; 1992(1)KarLJ358

ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. Narasimhappa, father of the petitioner, was leased one acre of land in Sy. No. 29 of Mallandapalli, Ragidahalli, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District by the Competent Authority in proceedings No. Spl. DAR.43/42-43 dated 27-8-1944 under the Grow More Food Scheme, to begin with. Under the said proceedings, the leasehold rights were conferred upon the grantee under the scheme so as to enable him to cultivate the land and enjoy the leasehold rights on the Government land. Subsequently, on the compliance with the condition of the lease, the Competent Authority by its order dated 31 -7-1956 confirmed the lease under the Land Grant Rules. Accordingly a saguvali chit was also issued in his favour subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years.2. It is undisputed that despite such a condition, the land was sold in favour of the fourth respondent by a registered sale deed dated 30-8-1956 for valuable con...

K. Narayanaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR4192; 1992(1)KarLJ582

Mohan, C.J. 1. A Preliminary Notification dated 3-11-1977 was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated November 24, 1977 to the following effect:- 'PART III - 3 KARNATAKA GAZETTE NOVEMBER 24, 1977 325 PART III - Section 3 NOTIFICATIONS RELATING TO LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANGALORE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION NO.BDA: SALAO: C3: PR: 301: 77-78 dated 3rd November 1977Whereas the development scheme for the formation of a layout called 'Banaswadi Scheme between Old Madras Road and Banaswadi Road' has been completed. Now therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority 1976 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1971), Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore hereby notify that the scheme has been made for the formation of a layout called 'Banaswadi Scheme between Old Madras Road and Banaswadi Road' comprising the following area: NOTE: 1) The particulars of the Scheme, a Map of th...

Daiv James Wilson Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1992CriLJ2223; ILR1991KAR3863

ORDER1. The petitioner is admittedly a British National who had landed in Bombay on 2-6-1984 under a valid passport to remain in India up to 2-11-1988 and visa to reside in India up to 24-6-1988 for spiritual purposes. He admittedly got registered before the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, on 26-6-1984 and went to Karwar on 7-4-1986 and he was residing in a place called Kudle near Gokarna since then. He had residential permit issued by the Government of Karnataka which was due to expire on 24-6-1988. So, he made an application on 1-3-1988 to the Government of Karnataka through the Superintendent of Police, Karwar, for granting him extension of time to stay in India beyond 24-6-1988. However, his application was rejected and he was served with a notice by P.W. 3 as per Exhibit P-2 dated 10-4-1988 informing him that his application for extension of stay in India had been rejected by the Government as per order T.P.M. No. HD/156/PCL/87 dated 7-4-1988 of the Home Secretary, Bangalore, a...

Honagouda Thirtha Gouda Patil Vs. Akkatai

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1992KAR1924

ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. On 6-9-1991 the Court made an Order in the absence of the learned Counsel on both sides. Later, the learned Counsel on both sides appeared and requested to recall the said Order and to hear them. Hence, this Writ Petition is coming again before Court.2. I heard learned Counsel on both sides. The Order made by this Court on 6-9-1991 is recalled.3. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows:-3 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No. 6/2 and 1 acre 34 guntas in Sy.No. 6/3 situated in Bhjradi village, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum District, are admittedly Patilki Inam lands: Therefore, the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) is attracted.4. One Murari s/o Linganna Gowda was the original holder of the village Office. He died. Thereafter, his wife Bhararnabai was in the occupation of the land because she was doing the duties of the Village Office, On an application for regrant, the lands were regranted under Se...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A. Albuquerque and Sons

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1992]198ITR609(KAR); [1992]198ITR609(Karn); (1993)ILLJ571Kant

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred under the provisions of section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that amount paid under section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act as damages for default in making payment of provident fund contributions cannot be construed to be penal in nature and the same is an admissible expenditure ?' 2. The nature of the amount levied and collected under section 14B of the Employees's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, has been considered by the Supreme Court in Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India [1979] 55 FJR 283, 293; AIR 1979 SC 1803. At page 1809, Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer observed thus : '18. I am clearly of the view that 'damages', as imposed by section 14B, includes a punitive sum quantified according to the circumstances of the case. In 'exemplary damages' this aggravating eleme...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane L ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1992]198ITR690a(KAR); [1992]198ITR690a(Karn)

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,08,644 made in the assessment for the assessment year 1980-81, being the amount transferred to the 'molasses storage fund' from the sale proceeds of the molasses ?' 2. There is no dispute that the selling price of molasses was fixed by the Government of India as per the Molasses Control Order and, while determining the price to be charged by the assessee, the Government had stipulated that one-third of the price charged should be transferred to a fund called 'Molasses Storage Fund'. This amount could be utilised only according to the instructions issued by the Government from time to time. The amount thus transferred has to be kept separately from othe...

Shivappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR3839; 1992(1)KarLJ287

ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. Subject matter of these two petitions is one and the same as also the contesting parties. Hence, I propose to dispose of them by the following common order.2. The question that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether the upset price imposed on the grant of land having been waived by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, the grant could be construed as a free grant. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-Bheemla Bai, mother-in-law of the third respondent Valibai, was granted four acres of land in Sy. No. 37/8 situated in Malligere village, Channagiri Taluk, Shimoga District, by the Competent Authority under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules subject to certain conditions. That grant was made on 29-11-1959 and saguvali chit also issued subsequently. While doing so, the Competent Authority imposed certain sum of money as upset price and the said amount was admittedly waived by ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Albuquerque and Sons

Court: Karnataka

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred under the provisions of Section 256(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961, reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that amount paid under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act as damages for default in making payment of provident fund contributions cannot be construed to be penal in nature and the same is an admissible expenditure ?' 2. The nature of the amount levied and collected under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, has been considered by the Supreme Court in Organo Chemicals Industries v. Union of India 1979 2 LLJ 416. At page 422, Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer, observed thus : '18. I am clearly of the view that 'damages', as imposed by Section 14-B, includes a punitive sum quantified according to the circumstances of the case. In 'exemplary damages' this aggravating elements is prominent. Constit...

Divisional Commissioner Vs. H. Hiriyannaiah

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1992KAR232; 1991(4)KarLJ689

ORDERMohan, C.J.1. The short question that arises for our consideration in these cases is whether under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Divisional Commissioner has suo motu powers of revision.2. The learned Single Judge has held to the contrary holding that in so far as specific suo motu powers have not been conferred and such a power is totally unavailable.3. Before us the correctness of this view is canvassed, while the respondents support the Judgment of the learned Single Judge, for our part, we find no difficulty in holding that he has suo motu powers. We will do to extract Section 56(1) of the Act:-'56. Power of revision- (1) The Tribunal, any Revenue Officer not inferior in rank to an Assistant Commissioner, and any Survey Officer not inferior in rank to a Superintendent of Land Records or an Assistant Settlement Officer in their respective departments, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the procee...