Karnataka Court June 1992 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.
Subhasgouda Vs. Lakshmi Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2410; 1992(4)KarLJ628
ORDERHiremath, J.1. The learned Single Judge has made a Reference in this matter to a Division Bench to be heard and decided by it under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act of 1961 (Karnataka Act 5 of 1962). According to the learned Judge, a controversy has arisen as to the power of the Judge to alter or modify the Judgment delivered by him but not signed in view of some of the Decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court.2. The matter for consideration arises in the following manner: The petitioners challenged the order of the Addl.Sessions Judge, Raichur, in Crl.Revision Petition No. 116/1988 dismissing the revision petition filed by the present petitioners against the order of the C.J.M. Raichur in C.C.No. 256/1988 directing issue of process against them for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 506, 147, 148 and 498-A IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. I n the petition, it is contended that the process ought not to have been issued as there was violatio...
Halappa BIn Rangappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2517; 1992(3)KarLJ135
ORDERHakeem, J.1. The short question that falls for consideration is whether notwithstanding the repeal of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 ('the Act') by Act 4 of 1991, the restriction imposed therein is enforceable in the proceedings under Section 54 of the C.P.C. pending as on the date of the repeal.2. The brief facts are as follows:-Under a registered Sale Deed dated 1-12-1975, Rangappa, father of the petitioners, purchased 2 acres 30 guntas of land from the sons of Marulayya (4th respondent herein). Later, in the suit for partition between the said Marulayya and his children, to which Rangappa was a party, the Civil Court held that what is acquired by the said Rangappa under and the said Sale Deed was only the 2/5th undivided right, title and interest of the sons of respondent-4, as against the 3/5th share held by respondents-3 and 4, and a preliminary decree was accordingly passed. The petitioner's father unsuccessfully challenged ...
Indian Plywood Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1992
Reported in: [1993]89STC412(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short) is the appellant before us in all these cases. The question is whether an article called 'formaldehyde' used in the manufacture of plywood is a component part of plywood. 2. The appellant purchased formaldehyde at a concessional rate of tax on the strength of declaration in form No. 37 issued under section 5(3-A) of the Act. After the completion of the assessments wherein the benefit of the concessional rate of tax was extended to the appellant, the assessing authority opined that the appellant had misused the declaration and, therefore, proceedings were initiated under section 5(3-B) of the Act. According to the assessing authority the article in question was not a component part of plywood. The notices under section 5(3-B) were issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal). The appellant responded by pointing out that formaldehyde was necessary in...
Smt. Narayani Rao Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2180
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, the exemption under rule 6(4)(f) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957, is available to a dealer in all circumstances, or is restricted in the manner laid down in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. : (1970)3SCC253 and D. C. Johar & Sons (P) Ltd. [1971) 27 STC 120 STC 120 ?' 2. The petitioner's husband (hereinafter referred as 'the dealer') was carrying on business in silica sand, and was registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). The instant case pertains to the assessment year 1st July, 1981 to 30th June, 1982. The assessing authority accepted the claim of the dealer that the freight charges which were specified and charged separately were to be excluded under rule 6(4)(f) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 ('the Rules', fo...
Southern Founders Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1992
Reported in: [1992]87STC349(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The dealer is the petitioner in both these revision petitions, under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). These petitions pertain to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The question is regarding the scope of section 18A of the Act. 2. The petitioner is the dealer in grey iron rough castings. Till the year 1980-81 this was taxed under the Act, under section 5(1), that is to say the goods in question did not fall within any of the enumerated goods under various Schedules to the Act. The petitioner was collecting the tax from its customers according to law. In August, 1982, the petitioner entertained a doubt about the rate of tax applicable to the goods in question and sought clarification from the assessing authority. However there was no response from the assessing authority to this letter. But, in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 he made an assessment in November, 1982, treating the goods as falling under se...
S. Premalatha Vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1992
Reported in: 1994ACJ150; [1993]78CompCas96(Kar); ILR1992KAR2520
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner's husband was employed by the first respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the ' company'). The company had entered into an agreement with the second respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the ' Corporation ' ). Two sets of agreements were entered into between the company and the Corporation. One in relation to the superannuation scheme and another group insurance scheme. The petitioner's husband died on October 21, 1989. The petitioner applied for payment of the benefits arising out of the two schemes. The company paid the amount due under the superannuation scheme to the petitioner, while the Corporation denied payment in regard to benefits arising under the group insurance scheme. Hence this petition.2. The Corporation has filed a statement of objections stating that the company had to pay the premium as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the group insurance master policy and the premium had no...
N. Sankappa Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2529; 1992(3)KarLJ474
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioners in these cases are owners possessed of lands situated in Savanoor or adjacent villages of Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. They claim to cultivate in the said lands areca, coconut, banana, cocoa and pepper; that they are agriculturists by profession and are solely dependent on agriculture for their livelihood; that the lands where cultivation is being carried on are on the banks of either Nethravathy or Kumaradhara rivers; that the water from the said rivers is utilised not only for cultivation of their lands but also for household purposes and for maintaining their cattle from time immemorial; that formerly the petitioners and their predecessors were lifting water by some mechanical means and that from the year 1967 onwards or thereabout the petitioners obtained Licences to draw water from the said rivers by using electric pumps. The Licences given to the petitioners are produced in the cases and they form two sets; one set of Licences ...
J.S. Udupi Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1992
Reported in: [1993]88STC411(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The appellant before us is a restaurant owner. For the period from 1st April, 1976 to 31st March, 1977, in the order of assessment, the turnover relating to the supply of food and drinks was also included. The assessment order was made on 30th September, 1977. On 20th March, 1978, a demand notice was served on the appellant. To complete the narration, we may also state here that if the tax demanded is not paid within 21 days from the said date of demand which was 12th April, 1978 in the instant care, penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, stood attracted automatically. In the meanwhile, on 4th January, 1972, the Supreme Court held (The State of Punjab v. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. : [1972]2SCR937 ) that the turnover relating to the supply of food and drinks by a 'composite hotel' (i.e., a hotel comprised of boarding and lodging) is not liable to sales tax on the supply of food and drinks because such supply is part of the servi...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. J.R. Chande
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR218(KAR); [1993]202ITR218(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred to us under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, read thus : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the orders of the first appellate authority who directed the Wealth-tax Officer to value the unquoted equity shares held by the assessee by adopting only the yield method (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is not mandatory ?' 2. These questions are to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue following the decision of this court rendered in CWT v. S. Jindal : [1992]194ITR539(KAR) . 3. Mr. Ramabhadran, learned counsel, is permitted to file his vakalath within a month from today. ...
Channappa S/O. Bheemappa Yadwad Vs. the Secretary to Govt. of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant236; 1992(3)KarLJ462
ORDER1. I have before me a clutch of writ petitions numbering about a dozen but the point to note is all of them have for their target a notification of the State of Karnataka purported to have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 121 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Government having taken power under the aforesaid section proceeded to exempt a large number of individual members of co-operative societies as also the societies themselves from the operation of sub-clauses (a-1) and (b)(iv) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act stating further that the exemption, so ordered, shall remain in force up to and inclusive of 30thDecember, 1991 and upon its expiry the provisions of the said section shall stand revived. I must mention the said order is dated the 23rd September, 1990. Earlier to the passing of the order afresh Government had passed two other orders one on the first occasion i.e. on 28th May, 1990 and an...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »