Karnataka Court July 1993 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.
Bangalore Wood Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ( ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1993
Reported in: [1994]92STC603(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Taxability under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short), is the question to be considered in all these petitions. The common question is whether the dealer who purchased timber in circumstances in which no sales tax was charged under section 5, is liable to pay tax on the said purchase price under section 6, because the timber purchased by him is cut or sawn by him, into sizes, logs, planks, rafters, etc., for purposes of sale. 2. The State contends that when timber is converted into logs, sizes, etc., a new product emerges and timber is consumed in the manufacture of the new products. Section 6 to the extent relevant to consider the rival contentions read as follows : 'Section 6. Levy of purchase tar under certain circumstances. - Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 5, every dealer who in the course of his business purchases any taxable goods in circumstances in which no tax under section 5 is leviable...
Bola Raghavendra Kamath and Sons Vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1993
Reported in: [1994]92STC87(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cashew kernels. It is a partnership firm and it is registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). The appeal pertains to the year April 1, 1981 to March 31, 1982. On August 31, 1984 an order of assessment was made. The assessing authority levied tax at the rate of 5 per cent on the sales turnover of cashew kernels and similarly on the purchase turnover of raw cashewnuts. The Deputy Commissioner initiated proceedings under section 21 of the Act to revise the said assessment order on the ground that the sale consideration received by the appellant in respect of a lorry was not included in the turnover. Subsequently an order was made by the Deputy Commissioner directing the inclusion of the sale consideration in the turnover and consequently he directed the assessing authority to pass a proper order calculating the tax payable and to issu...
State of Karnataka Vs. M. Madhvaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1993
Reported in: [1993]91STC572(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. One revision petition is by the State which is aggrieved by the order in one of the matters pertaining to the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee had earlier purchased what is referred as the chassis of a lorry and thereafter built body on it and used the same. Subsequently the lorry was sold. The assessee contended that the sale of the vehicle did not attract any sales tax on the ground the earlier purchase had attracted sales tax and the tax was paid on the said sale transaction on the basis that what was purchased by the assessee was a motor vehicle under entry 70 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). This contention of the assessee was accepted by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and hence the revision petition by the State. S.T.R.P. No. 35 of 1989 is by another assessee. The assessment period is November 16, 1982 to November 4, 1983. The assessing authority had accepted the contention of the assessee that th...
Mohammed @ Podiya Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2306; 1993(3)KarLJ331
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner executed a power-of-attorney in favour of the fourth respondent as per Annexure-C. The Tahsildar initiated action in terms of Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by making a report that occupancy rights in respect of the lands in question had been registered by the Land Tribunal at Puttur in favour of the petitioner and that by the said Power-of-Attorney executed on 15.10.1980 the petitioner had made over the possession of the lands and the transaction involved in the said registered power-of-attorney is a contravention of the provisions of Section 61 of the Act. On the basis of this report made by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner made an enquiry after issue of notice to the concerned parties. The petitioner stated before the Assistant Commissioner that for the last two years he was a heart patient; that the fourth respondent is his maternal uncle's son and on account of his illness he ...
Happy Home Builders (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delite Enterprises
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2558; 1994(1)KarLJ103
Vasanthakumar, J.1. These Regular First Appeals are directed against the common Judgment and decree dated 18.7.1985, passed in O.S.No. 659/81 by the Court of the IX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.Parties are described as in the original suit. Regular First Appeal No. 387/86 is filed by the Second Defendant in the original cause and Regular First Appeal 513/86 is filed by the 1st- defendant Company. .2. Facts to briefly state are:-M/s. Delite Enterprises a registered partnership firm carrying on business as Builders and Contractors at Bombay who is the plaintiff was approached by one Estate Agent by name M. Hussain stationed at Bangalore and was appraised about the feasibility of development of flats in the suit schedule property belonging to M/s. Happy Home Builders a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Bangalore which had the advantages of having obtained a sanctioned plan, sital value ad measuring 23019 sq. ft. and the sanctioned plan relat...
E.P. Rajan Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1993
Reported in: 1993CriLJ3490; 1994(46)ECC225; ILR1993KAR2250; 1993(3)KarLJ364
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 31/93 pertains to the detention of one Venu, Writ Petition No. 32/93 pertains to the detention of Govindan Kutty, Writ Petition No. 37/93 pertains to K. K. Dinesh and Writ Petition No. 55/93 pertains to the detenu Ramesh Dhandiram Patil. For the sake of convenience the main facts are stated with reference to Writ Petition No. 32/93. An order of detention was made on 12-10-1992 under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('the COFEPOSA Act' for short). The detenu Govindan Kutty was ordered to be detained under S. 3(1)(iv) of the COFEPOSA Act since the Government of Karnataka was satisfied that the detenu was likely to engage in the activity referred earlier, i.e. to say that the detenu was dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods. In the case of others the allegation is that the detenus were engaged in transporting, con...
Muniswamy Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2108; 1993(3)KarLJ346
Majmudar, C.J.1. In this Writ Appeal, the Writ petitioner has submitted that the alienation of the disputed land in his favour made as early as 20th February, 1953 by the original grantee, who was a member of the Scheduled Caste, cannot be voided under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, for short the 'Act'. The transaction was declared null and void by the Authorities and the possession of the land was ordered to be restored to original grantee-Appellant's Vendor. He challenged that action unsuccessfully, before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26674/1992. That is how he has come by way of this Appeal.2. A few relevant facts are to be noted to appreciate the grievance made by the Appellant for our consideration. An extent of 2 acres and 3 guntas comprised in Sy.No. 81 of Doddiganahalli, was regranted to one Mudduga Bin Hanumanthuga in the year 1942-43. The said grantee had sold the afo...
Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. S. Bhaskar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2102; 1993(3)KarLJ227
Majmudar, C.J.1. In these two Writ Appeals the Karnataka Electricity Board ('the Board' for short) has prayed for setting aside of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge. In order to appreciate the grievance of the Board against the said Order a few relevant facts are required to be noted.2. The respondents are the employees of the Board. They were appointed as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in the services of the Board. At the time when they were appointed they were holding M.E. degree qualification. They joined the service of the Board on 7.9.77 and 31.8.77 respectively. They had acquired M.E. qualification in September 1975 and January 1976 respectively. By an office order dated 26th June, 1979 the Board had decided to grant two advance increments to the Assistant Engineers (Electrical) who after joining the services of the Board had acquired Master Degrees or Doctorate in Electrical Engineering. The order was to be effective from the date of issue. The contention of the res...
Company Bank, Bangalore Vs. Lalitha H. Holla and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant133; ILR1993KAR3260; 1993(3)KarLJ372
ORDER1. Respondents 1 to 52 herein filed a petition for winding up againstrespondent No. 53 (hereinafter referred to as the Company') in Company Petition Nos. 43 to 94 of 1992 (later clubbed into Co. P. No. 43 of 1992). The said petitions were admitted on 28-8-1992. The Company is the owner of Premises No. 48, Church Street, Bangalore. An order has been made by this Court on 22-9-1992 in C. A. No. 988/1992 directing the tenants of the Company to deposit the rents from September 1992 and onwards into Court, to preserve the assets of the Company and proper management thereof, so that the interests of the large body of unsecured creditors can also be protected.2. The applicant Bank (hereinafter also referred to as 'the Bank') claims to be a secured creditor of the Company. According to the applicant a sum of Rs. 98 lakhs was advanced by the Bank to the Company and in that behalf the company had executed an on demand promissory note, an agreement for term loan and other documents on 30-9-1...
Ganapathy Seetharam Bhat Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2413; 1993(3)KarLJ208
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The second respondent before us is the Agricultural Produce Cooperative Marketing Society which was established to provide the marketing of the agricultural produce to its members. The appellant before us who was the Writ Petitioner, was elected as a Director and subsequently as the Chairman of the Managing Committee. Apart from the elected members the Government thought it fit to nominate respondents 3 to 5 as its nominees under Section 59 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (the 'Act'). The nomination was done on 28th August 1991. The period of the nominees to function as the members of the Managing Committee was not stated in the nomination and it was to be 'until further orders'. The petitioner challenged these nominations on the ground that the State Government had no power at all to nominate them under Section 29 of the Act which was not at all attracted. Since the question involved before us is the interpretation of Section 29 we will refer ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »