Karnataka Court February 1995 Judgments
Tajappa Virupaxappa Ritti Vs. General Manager, Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1995
Reported in: II(1996)ACC412; ILR1995KAR2227; 1995(3)KarLJ419
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides.2. This Appeal assails the correctness of an order dated 2.8.1984 passed in M.V.C.No.221/82 whereby the M.A.C.T., Dharwad, had dismissed the appellant's claim for compensation. The appellant had contended that on 3.3.1982 at about 10.30 a.m., he attempted to put a bag into a K.S.R.T.C. bus No. MYF 3781 through the window in order to secure a seat for himself. The versions are conflicting, but the position that emerges is that this attempt was made prior to the bus coming to a halt. The bus stand was extremely crowded due to the holding of 'Uras', and in these circumstances, the claimant fell off the side of the bus and sustained two minor injuries externally, but four fractures of some seriousness. He filed a Claim Petition M.V.C. 165/82 prior to the present one and thereafter, followed that up with the present Claim Petition. The earlier Petition came to be dismissed and as far as the present one is concerned, the learned Judge...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Parthasarthy and Others Vs. G.K. Srinivasa Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)560; 1995CriLJ3406; ILR1995KAR1584; 1995(3)KarLJ203
ORDER1. The petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned VII Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No. 17311/1993 on 18-11-1993 issuing process against them for the offences under Section 467, 472, 473 IPC. Petitioners have prayed for setting aside the said order and for quashing the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. 2. Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are as under :- The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners and two others under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for various offences under Sections 339, 406, 379, 467, 472, 473 and 323 IPC. The complaint was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Police filed B-Report. The respondent protested against the same and led evidence. On the basis of the complaint averments, respondents evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Magistrate passed the order on 18-11-1993 registering the case against the petitioners for t...
Tag this Judgment!Union Home Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Kar)217; ILR1995KAR2366; [1995]215ITR758(KAR); [1995]215ITR758(Karn); 1995(39)KarLJ393
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners call in question the constitutional validity of sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989. 2. Briefly stated, section 234A makes a provision for the payment of simple interest calculated at the rate of 24 per cent. per annum by an assessee, who commits default in furnishing a return of income under section 139(1) or section 139(4) or in response to a notice sent to him under section 142(1) of the Act. The amount at which such interest is payable and the period for which the same is payable is set out in the provision itself, reference whereto shall be made in detail a little later. 3. Section 234B of the Act, on the other hand, provides for payment of interest by an assessee, who even though liable to pay advance tax under section 208 of the Act, has either failed to pay such tax or the advance tax paid under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohammed Haneef
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC393; 1997ACJ461; [1995(71)FLR726]; ILR1995KAR1450; 1995(6)KarLJ696
1. The Insurance company has filed this appeal against the award of compensation by she Workmen's Compensation Commissioner with respect to an employment injury suffered by the claimant namely fracture of a bone of the leg while he was unloading manure.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The worker has suffered a non schedule injury is also not in dispute. The quantum of compensation payable has been assessed by the Commissioner on the basis of assessment made by him relying Ex. P3. The contention of the appellant is that the worker has not produced any medical certificate estimating the loss of earning capacity suffered by the claimant, due to the accident. The question therefore raised and argued at length in the appeal is the right of the adjudicating authority to assess the quantum of compensation independently under Section 4(1)(c)(i) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.3. The counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of t...
Tag this Judgment!Manish Plastics Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1734; 1995(39)KarLJ372
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. A common question of law has brought these petitions together for a common hearing. The question turns on the true and correct interpretation of section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with entry 46 of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as the same stood between April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1990. The said entry exempted during the relevant period footwear costing not more than Rs. 30 per pair from the payment of tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. 2. The petitioners who are dealers in footwear and have effected inter-State sales of the same, argue, that by reason of the exemption enjoyed by footwear under entry 46 supra, the inter-State sales effected by them are free from the payment of Central sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The exemption granted to footwear costing less Rs. 30 per pair, it is contended is a general exemption within the meaning of section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act so ...
Tag this Judgment!Prem Rice Mill Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1605; 1995(3)KarLJ38
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this Petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of Writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the Enforcement Officer appointed under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, from demanding and collecting the market fee in respect of the transactions made by the petitioners in respect of Rice which is controlled by the Levy Order or orders issued by virtue of Entry-48 of List II and Entry-33 of List-III of 7th Schedule, since they are not covered under the enactment of Entry-26 and 28 of List-11 of 7th Schedule and for the issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus communicating and directing the respondent-Market Committees to allot shop cum-godown to the petitioners in the respective Market Yards and for such further or other reliefs. The petitioners have also claimed interim relief to the effect that respondents and their subordinates be directed not to demand or collect market fee in respect of transaction...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mrs. V. Ambujakshi Vs. Bangalore University by Its Registrar and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant369; 1995(2)KarLJ191
ORDER1. At the stage of admission both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents were heard and the writ petition is disposed.2. The petitioner filed this writ petition by way of public interest petition complaining that the first respondent-University has grossly violated the regulations and the recommendations of the Medical Council of India and Graduates Medical Council by issuing Annexure-D, the time table scheduled to commence all the examinations for MDBS Course from 23-2-1995 onwards. She challenges the fixation of the dales of examinations, as arbitrary, without application of mind and illegal. The petitioner claims interest in the proper conduct of the affairs of the respondent-University and the Medical Education.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mohan Rangam strenuously contended that the commencement of examinations for the first and the second year MBBS students on 23-2-1995 is contrary to the Medical Council of...
Tag this Judgment!Master Strips (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1800
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing cold-rolled steel strips from hot-rolled steel strips in coil form purchased form local registered dealers.2. Assessment for the period 1.7.1984 to 30th June 1985 was completed by the Assessing Authority concerned by its order dated 24th February 1987 in which the petitioner's claim that the conversion of hot-rolled strips into cold-rolled strips involved only reduction of the thickness of strips without any changes in the chemical composition thereof was accepted by the authority concerned. While doing so the Assessing Authority relied upon his personal observation of the process of conversion in the petitioner's Factory of which a reference is made in the order of assessment passed by him. The exemption claimed by the petitioner on the sale of cold-rolled strips was issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by which cold-rolled strips manufactured out of hot-rolled strips have been held liable...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ427; [1995(71)FLR780]; ILR1995KAR2086
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. An aspect of crucial importance has been projected in the course of this Appeal. The proceeding was one under the Workmen's Compensation Act where the death had occurred and the widow of the deceased who was the driver of a vehicle, had applied for compensation. In the course of the proceeding, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath for a speedy adjudication and the Lok Adalath after hearing the parties recorded that the case had been compromised for a sum of Rs. 59,735/-. Subsequently, when the matter came up before the authority a submission appears to have been made on behalf of the claimant that the figure is not acceptable and that consequently the matter should be heard on merits. The authority recorded some evidence which consisted of the statement of the wife of the deceased who deposed to the fact that he was being paid a salary of Rs. 900/- per month and on the basis of this figure, the authority adjudicated the matter and awarded a sum of Rs. 78,088/-...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramanatha Guptha and Another Vs. S. Venkatachalapathy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant8; ILR1995KAR1434; 1995(2)KarLJ366
ORDER1. This application which has been presented by the original applicant No. 2 in RFA. 115/94 raises certain issues of some consequence with regard to the conduct of proceedings before Courts and the finality or otherwise that has to be attached to the actions of parties to those proceedings. The appeal came to be dismissed by me by order dated 10-1-95 and the reason for this was because the two appellants filed a joint memo dated 1-2-95 (sic) requesting the court for permission to withdraw the R.F.A. in question. The appellants have been duly identified by their learned advocate apart from which the memo in question has been affirmed before an advocate and notary by the name of B. S. Padma Prasad. Subsequent to this, it appears that applicant No. 1 was no longer interested in the litigation and the second applicant thereafter presented one morememo to the Court which is on record dated 3-3-94 duly signed by him requesting that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »