Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1344; 1992(3)KarLJ40
ORDERRama Jois, J. 1. This Writ Petition is presented by Hebbal Gangenahalli Layout Residents Association, which is the first petitioner and its members who are residents of the layout, who are petitioners-2 to 9, questioning the legality of the licence granted by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent for running power looms in the premises belonging to her, which is situate in front of house of petitioner No. 2 and near the residential houses of the other petitioners, in a residential locality.2. Brief facts of the case, are these: Gangenahalli layout is a residential layout formed by the then City Improvement Trust Board constituted under the C.I.T.B. Act, 1948, which has since been substituted by the Bangalore Development Authority ('the B.D.A' for short) under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. A Residential Colony called Weavers Colony was also formed by the Cubbonpet Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society which faces the Gangenah...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1504; 1992(3)KarLJ96
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The facts of this Review Petition show how inadvertance, negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the Advocate appearing for a public authority and the officers of the Authority could create enormous problems for it and complicate an otherwise simple matter, causing considerable amount of inconvenience and hardship to large number of people.2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the presentation of the Review Petition and which are necessary for the disposal of the Review Petitions are as follows:-(i) By Notification dated 3rd January, 1977, the Bangalore Development Authority ('B.D.A.' for short) published a Scheme under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (herein- after referred to as 'the Act') for formation of Gokul II Stage Rajamahal Vilas II Stage Lay Out. The development scheme covered an area of 1,334 acres 12 guntas of land situate in 8 villages including Mathikere, Chikkamarenahalli and Dyavasandra villages in Bangalore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2827; [1993]200ITR114(KAR); [1993]200ITR114(Karn)
S.A. Hakeem, J. 1. The question that arises in this case is with regard to the registration of a firm. 2. The Income-tax Officer refused registration to the assesses firm on the ground that the minors were made full-fledged partners under the partnership deed. It was found by him that the recitals in the partnership deed make it clear that the minors represented by their respective guardians actually become full-fledged partners. He has further followed the direction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B of the Income-tax Act ('the Act') that the minors have been made to share the losses suffered by the firm which is prohibited under the Partnership Act and hence directing him to refuse registration. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer refusing registration. 3. Further appeals of the assessee were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the lower authorities having admitted that the guardians acted a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1993Kant39; ILR1992KAR1359; 1992(2)KarLJ307
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The following questions are referred for consideration and determination of the Full Bench :(1) What is the scope of jurisdiction conferred upon the Land Tribunals under Section 112-B(b) of the Act in deciding the claim of occupancy right made under Section 48A of the Act ? (2) Is it not open to the Land Tribunals to decide all questions that arise while considering Form No. 7 filed for the purpose of granting or refusing the occupancy right claimed therein ? (3) When a jurisdiction is conferred upon the Land Tribunal to decide whether a person is a tenant or not, does it not take into its fold to decide all the controversies having a bearing upon the claim in order to decide the question whether a person is a tenant or not and (4) Which of the decisions of this Court in Mudukappa's case : AIR1978Kant136 and Guruvappa's case : ILR1985KAR386 or the decisions in Appi Belchadthi's case (1982 (2) Karnataka Law Journal 565 and Yellappa's case, (R.F.A. No. 26 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1992Kant337; ILR1992KAR1483; 1992(3)KarLJ89
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The order of reference dated 8-8-1991 made by the Division Bench reads thus :'The two important questions of law arise are :(1) Whether individual notice under S. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Karnataka Act No. 17/61 is mandatory or directory?(2) Even if held to be directory, can the procedure adumbrated under S. 45 of the Land Acquisition Act be rendered nugatory?'On this point there are three rulings :(1) : AIR1984Kant208 ;(2) (1987) 2 Kant LJ 133 and (3) (1988) Kant LJ 263.Prima facie we are unable to accept, with great respect, the law laid down therein because the effect of these decisions renders sub-sec. (1A) ineffective. Sub-section (1-A) as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 17/61 under Section 7 of that Act. That reads as follows :'Act XVII of 1961, S. 7:In Section 4 of the Act:--(1) in sub-section (1) :(a) after the words 'appropriate Government' the words 'or the Deputy Commissioner' shall be inserted;(b) for the words 'notification ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1494
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The following question has been referred for the consideration of the Full Bench, by a Division Bench of this Court : 'Whether a notification issued by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is impliedly repealed or rendered ineffective when the Legislature amends the Act and introduces an entry in the Schedule to the Act, which relates to the class of goods to which exemption is given by the notification ?' 2. The relevant facts and the basis of the reference are found in the order of reference made by the Division Bench, which reads thus : 'In this sales tax revision petition, we are concerned with entry 48-A(ii) of the Second Schedule of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, which was inserted by Act No. 23 of 1983 (with retrospective effect from 1st July, 1974). Prior to the introduction of this entry, the rate of tax applicable to chemical fertiliser mixtures was governed by a notificati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1993Kant90; ILR1992KAR1296; 1992(2)KarLJ158
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. This writ petition was referred by the learned single Judge for consideration by the Division Bench on the ground that it involves a substantial question of law. The Division Bench in turn referred the matter for considerationby a larger Bench on the ground that an earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Mohammed Haneef, : AIR1986Kant191 , hereinafter referred as Bharath Petroleum Corporation's case, may require reconsideration.2. The petitioner obtained a land measuring 11 1/2 cents in Udupi town on term lease from the first respondent, along with a building thereon and other appurtenant land and buildings. It was a term lease and the lease deed was registered. The lease deed was executed on 3-9-1973. The lease was for a period of 25 years with effect from 1-4-1973. The lease deed indicates that the lessee was already in possession by virtue of an earlier lease deed dated 28-7-1950 and the land had a thea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1992)107CTR(Kar)31; ILR1992KAR2421; [1993]201ITR1(KAR); [1993]201ITR1(Karn)
K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated June 16, 1992, passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 10682 of 1990. 2. The learned single judge has allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax and remitted and application filed by the respondent/petitioner under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 3. The Commissioner took the view that the assessee would be entitled to relief under section 273A(1) of the Act only in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 and 1982-83 whereas the application was filed by the assessee for waiver of penalty in respect of the assessment years 1978-79, 1980-81 to 1986-87. 4. The learned single judge has held that there is no such bar contained either in sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 273A of the Act. The learned single judge had followed a decision of the High Court of Alla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1992(39)ECC69; 1992(60)ELT388(Kar); ILR1992KAR2955; 1992(3)KarLJ86
ORDER1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of television sets at its factory in Bangalore. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issue of show cause notices at Annexures 'C' and 'D' under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The first show cause notice is dated 23-5-1988 and relates to the period between January 1988 to April 1988. The second show cause notice is dated 16-9-1988 and relates to the period between May 1988 to August 1988. Indisputably the show cause notices in question are issued within six months from the relevant date referred to in Section 11A of the Act. These two show cause notices have been issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the basis for the issue of Show Cause notices being short levy of excise duty as a result of suppression of facts or violation of Act or the Rules with an intent to evade payment of excise duty the proviso to Section 11A(1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2565; 1992(3)KarLJ378
ORDERJagannatha Hegde, J.1. In this Election Petition, the petitioner is questioning the election held to the 34th Hospet Assembly By-election. The Petitioner and respondents 1 to 17 were contesting candidates for the said election held on 16.6.1991. Respondent-1 was declared as successful on 17.6.1991. The difference of votes cast between the petitioner and respondent-1 was only 433. The petitioner, however, alleges that, in reality, he has secured highest valid votes, but for various irregularities and corrupt practices committed by respondent-1 and his agents. According to the petitioner, the declaration of election of respondent-1 is liable to be set aside under Sections 100(1)(b) read with 123(7); 100(1)(b) read with 123(8) and Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondent-1 is the sole contesting party and he will be referred hereinafter as 'the respondent'. The respondent, after appearance, filed written state...
Tag this Judgment!