Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2488; 1992(3)KarLJ405; (1993)ILLJ448Kant
ORDER1. Since the questions involved in all these petitions are common, these petitions are clubbed and disposed of by this Common Order.2. The case of the petitioners in all the petitions is that first respondent appointed either on February 29, 1988 or on September 5, 1988 and on subsequent dates these petitioners either as Junior Assistants or Class IV employees on temporary basis. After thus appointing, all the petitioners reported for duty and continued in respective posts. They were given increments and other benefits entitled to. When such being the position, the respondent-1, without servings a notice to these petitioners and hearing them in the matter, by an order dated August 5, 1989 terminated the services of the petitioners. One of the termination orders of one of the petitioners reads as follows :-'The services of Sri. V. C. Naik, who has been appointed as Junior Assistant/Sales Assistant on purely temporary basis, are hereby terminated with immediate effect since the mana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT(Cri)581; 1993CriLJ2310; ILR1992KAR3804; 1992(4)KarLJ563
1. Appellant Babu Rao has been convicted by the Special Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City under section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Canvassing the correctness and legality of the said order of conviction and sentence he has preferred this appeal through the Senior Jail Superintendent, Central prison, Bangalore.2. Sri R. C. Ijari was appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue this appeal on behalf of the appellant and he has ably assisted the Court.3. The case of the prosecution is brief and simple : On 27-2-90 at about 5-30 p.m. the accused was found in possession of some ganja packets while he was selling the same to the public behind Seetharama Choultry, Kengeri. The Special squad of the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore which was on beat rounds having rece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1382
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Appellant challenged the grant of 10 acres of land to the first respondent under the Land Grant Rules. The grant was made in November 1983.2. According to the appellant he sought the grant of land because he belonged to the category of ex-military personnel. Earlier he had also applied for the grant of land in the same survey number in the year 1979. Subsequently the first respondent also applied for the grant of land claiming to be an ex-military personnel. It is stated that the land is situated in Survey No. 41 which in all measured more than 340 acres out of which 20 acres of land was reserved for grant to exhibitory personnel. The first respondent was allotted 10 acres out of this 20 acres on 26-10-1983 by the Deputy Commissioner. The first respondent was not satisfied with this grant and persuaded the authorities to allot him further land and accordingly under the impugned order he was granted with another 10 acres thus exhausting the entire land reserved f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1992(60)ELT390(Kar); 1992(2)KarLJ150
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The complainant alleges that the respondent has committed contempt of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd November 1990, whereby the respondent was directed to reconsider the complainant's refund claim in the light of a certain order made by CEGAT and make an order thereon within four weeks from the date of receipt of the directions. The order on the refund applications was made on 17th February 1992 by the Assistant Collector of Customs. It was made pursuant to an order dated 12th February 1992 passed by the respondent making an adjudication, allegedly in terms of the order of CEGAT aforementioned. In the process of making the order dated 12th February 1992, the respondent said thus :-'In such a situation and in the context of the contempt petition filed in regard to their refund claim which is to be considered after readjudication based on quantification, of this case as per Hon'ble High Court's orders, I am inclined to confirm the demand made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1993Kant7; ILR1992KAR1377; 1992(2)KarLJ152
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The 1strespondent herein was the petitioner in the writ petition; he sought the quashing of the Resolution of the Appellant-Bar Council dated 26-6-1983 whereby the Bar Council resolved to refer to its Disciplinary Committee a complaint dated 10-2-1982 received by the Bar Council against the petitioner. The petitioner also sought the quashing of the two orders of the Disciplinary Committee, whereby the objections of the petitioner against the enquiry were overruled.2. We are not concerned with the merits of the complaint against the petitioner.Question involved is purely one of law, as to the period of limitation governing the disposal of a complaint lodged with the Bar Council.3. Complaint was lodged with the Bar Council, against the petitioner on 10th February, 1982; after calling for the remarks of the petitioner, the Bar Council resolved to refer the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee on 13-2-1983 (an year after the receipt of the complaint); accord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1992)108CTR(Kar)215; [1993]199ITR235(KAR); [1993]199ITR235(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ153
K. Shivashanker Bhat, J. 1. The question referred for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, respect of the assessment year 1979-80 read thus : '1. Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow depreciation on value of roads, wall and fences 2. Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to include the value of work-in-progress, machinery and equipment in transit and under erection in the computation of capital for the purpose of calculating relief under section 80J 3. Whether, on the fact in circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1993]199ITR190(KAR); [1993]199ITR190(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for shot,) in respect of assessment year 1977-78 reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share income from Hind Automats was liable to tax in the hands of the assessee as an individual ?'2. The assessee in this case had obtained on a partition in the larger family, his interest in the partnership firm of Messrs. Hind Automats when he was unmarried. On his marriage on January 16, 1973, the share income, according to the assessee, came to be of the Hindu undivided family, consisting of himself and his wife. This claim was no accepted by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the case of the assessee and granted the status of Hindu undivided family. On appeal by the Department, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the case of the assessee and granted the status of Hindu undivided family. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1583
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The revision petition requires us to construe section 5(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Karnataka Act', for short) which reads : 'Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, shall whatever be the quantum of his total turnover, be liable to pay tax at the rate specified in this Act on the sale of any goods which he has purchased in the course of inter-State trade or commerce in respect of which the concessional rate of tax under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, has been levied.' 2. The petitioner purchased goods in the course of inter-State trade availing of the concessional rate of tax under section 8(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the Central Act, for short). He did so in the course of the assessment year 1980-81, during which period he was registered as a dealer under the Central Act. He sold these goods during the assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1792; 1992(2)KarLJ354; (1992)IILLJ882Kant
ORDER1. This writ petition, though listed for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel representing the parties, it is deemed to have been posted for final disposal and heard them accordingly. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition are neither in controversy nor debated. However, the facts are briefly set out below in order to understand the contentions of the parties as to how the 'reckonable service' is to be understood. One K. Eshwarappa was working as Field Assistant in Vanivilas Co-operative Sugar Factory - the third respondent herein having joined service on May 1, 1972. Due to shortage of raw-materials, third respondent laid off the services of the employees including the said Eshwarappa from April 3, 1985. During the period of lay-off the said Eshwarappa - the husband of the petitioner - died on July 14, 1988. The petitioner contends that her husband was a subscriber to the employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund. As such, she was entitled to get family pens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1224; [1992]197ITR407(KAR); [1992]197ITR407(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In these appeals (see [1992] 194 ITR 409), we are mainly concerned with the scope of rule 16 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (these rules are referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules'). 2. The appellants entered into an agreement with the third respondent. It is dated February 23, 1984. The agreement was to purchase a house property belonging to the third respondent for a sum of Rs. 2,80,000, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 was paid as advance. The third respondent was a defaulter in the payment of taxes under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short), and, consequently, notices in Form I. T. C. P. 1 were served on him in the year 1973, under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Act. Subsequently, the property in question was attached under rule 48 of the Rules (read with Form I. T. C. P. 16). Thereafter, there was a proclamation of sale and sale of the property by public auction was held on August 19, 1987. The thi...
Tag this Judgment!