Karnataka Court December 1996 Judgments

Karnataka Light Metal Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income T ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Kar)154

RAJENDRA BABU, J. :In this reference arising under s. 256(2) of the IT Act three questions have been referred for our opinion and they are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant was not entitled to set off or carry forward business loss of the earlier years against the income for the relevant year ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business in which the loss was originally sustained had been discontinued in 1975 ?3. Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was right in holding that the business carried on by the applicant during the relevant year was a different one ?'2. The assessee is a company and was engaged in the job work of flattening of wires supplied by M/s Karnataka Steel & Wire Products Ltd. (KSWP). The assessee has taken on lease the premises belonging to M/s Karnataka Steel & Wire Products Ltd., and set up its own mach...

Eshwarawwa Vs. Amarappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR911; 1997(2)KarLJ95

ORDERMohamad Anwar, J1. Heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for petitioner. The Learned Counsel for respondent could not be heard as he could not keep himself present to canvass his arguments.2. This revision is direction against the concurrent orders of the Courts below rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under order Rule 9 C.P.C. for restoration of her petition filed under Order 33, Rule 1 C.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 7/89.3. The petitioner had presented the petition under Order 33, Rule 1 C.P.C. in the said Misc. Case No. 7/1989 against respondent in the Trial Court seeking permission to sue as an indigent person for the reliefs prayed therein. That petition came to be dismissed for default on 4.7.91. Subsequently, she made an application under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 7/91 before the Trial Court to restore her said petition. The respondent opposed that application. A formal enquiry was held by the learned Munsiff. The petitioner adduced evidence in supp...

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Nema Co-operative Society Vs. State of Karnata ...

Court: Karnataka

G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These Writ Petitions have been filed for quashing memo dated 28.12.95 (annexure 'A') issued by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner permitting the 4th respondent to sell Kerosene Oil to the card holders by opening a fair price depot at Beigavi village. The said memo seems to have been issued pursuant to the order dated 4.11.95 (annexure 'R1') passed by the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies Department.2. For proper appreciation of the rival contentions raised by the parties at the Bar, I find it more convenient first to refer to the statutory provisions which have material bearing on the issues involved in the present case. Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) empowers the Central Government to frame orders, inter alia, to secure equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of essential commodities. Section 5 of the Act authorises the Central Government to delegate legislative powers to make orders or issue notifications under ...

Associated Cement Company Ltd., Shahabad, Gulbarga Dist. Vs. Shivamma ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR394; 1997(4)KarLJ544

ORDERMohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioners in these two sets of writ petitions who are the seller and purchaser of an industrial undertaking challenge the award passed by the Labour Court in the matter of re-employment of the workers of the seller. The workers who are the respondents in these writ petitions have taken notice through Mr. Basavaraj Kareddy and I have heard the Counsel as well.2. The seller had employed the workers in question as Malis to tend the garden attached to the house of the Officers of the seller industrial establishment. They have admittedly put in services between 10 to 20 years on 30-6-1989, their services were terminated without complying the requirements of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act by the seller. Thereupon, these workers raised an industrial dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act. These applications were made on 17-10-1989. Pending the proceedings, the industrial establishment was transferred by the seller in favour of the purchaser on 31-12-1989. The...

The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway Vs. Ksrtc and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998ACJ973; ILR1997KAR199

M.B. Vishwanath, J.1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act-1939 and it arises out of the Judgment and Award passed in MVC 966/1983 on 23.12.1986 by the Motor Accident. Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City.2. In the claim petition filed by the claimant-Narayanamma (Respondent No. 3 in this Court), the present appellant Southern Railway was the second respondent. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) was the first respondent. The driver was the third respondent. The driver has not been impleaded as a party in this Court. The claimant Narayanamma mother of the deceased is the third respondent in the present appeal.3. As I have already stated, the Southern Railway is the present appellant.4. The accident happened this way: The deceased Seena (son of the claimant Narayanamma) was traveling in the BTS bus bearing No. MYF-740 on 14.6.1983 from K.R. Market to Horamavu. The driver of the said bus was driving the bus in a highly ...

Shri R. Balaji Singh Vs. the Hindustan Machine Tools Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1998(79)FLR542]; ILR1998KAR1394; (1997)IILLJ484Kant

ORDER1. The short question that has been raised for consideration inter alia is whether the petitioner, an employee is entitled to challenge a clause in the conciliation settlement entered into between the i employer and the unions on the ground that is arbitrary and violates the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The brief facts are as follows : The petitioner herein was an employee under the respondent. He resigned his employment on January 31, 1989. Subsequent thereto on July 7, 1989 the employer entered into a conciliation settlement after negotiation between various unions representing the employees and Annexure-B is the copy thereof produced by the petitioner (the complete text thereof produced by the Management as Annexure-I). It contained the following clauses : '10 Lumpsum Payment : For the priod from January 1, 1987 to April 30, 1987, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1600/- Rs. 100/- per month will be paid to those workmen who were on the r...

The Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge Vs. A. Chandrashekar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1470

M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We need to prefix this judgment with the observation that this proceeding presents a distressing state of affairs for more than one reason. The first of them is because the party against whom the proceeding has been instituted happens to be a lawyer and a lawyer being an Officer of the Court, it is always been looked upon as being his duty to ensure that standards of professional ethics and propriety are observed at all stages. In the recent past, there has been several blemishes in this regard and it is equally the bounded duty of the judiciary to ensure that in those of the cases where a member of the bar does unfortunately mis-conduct himself or where he is responsible for conduct that undermines the working of the Courts or the Judges, that it will be very necessary from the angles of principle and propriety to take adequate corrective action. The Courts will always adopt an understanding and helpful attitude while dealing with the members of the bar and as a r...

Principal Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Belgaum Vs. Manju ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998CriLJ20; 1997(4)KarLJ437

M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The respondent is present in person. She has in the course of the earlier proceedings in this Court been behaving in an extremely indecorous fashion, walking into the Court room when she pleases and misbehaving in the open Court. In our order dt. 13-11-96 she was administered a final warning. Despite this, she is persistent in her misbehaviour in the course of the hearing even today. 2. The respondent has once again presented a written application in which she has demanded that 14 Judges and one Advocate should be summoned as witnesses. We have already dealt with an identical application and passed speaking order on 13-11-96 at which time we have given reasons indicating why such an application cannot be granted. Those reasons still hold good and hence the present application stands rejected. 3. The then Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Belgaum by his Reference dated 6-11-95 had pointed out to the High Court that the respondent to this proceeding had instituted about...

State of Karnataka Vs. Basavegowda Alias Chandra

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997CriLJ4386

1. The respondent-accused to this appeal was the husband of the complainant Bhagyamma and it was alleged that about 10 days after their marriage, on 30-4-1987, he took her to the Burudala Bore forest under the pretext of going for the wedding of a friend and that he threatened to kill her unless she parted with all her ornaments. Bhagyamma, finding no other option, removed all her jewellery valued at around Rs. 11,000/- and handed the same over to the accused who wrapped the same in a handkerchief and put it in his pocket. Thereafter, the accused is alleged to have assaulted her with a big stone whereupon, Bhagyamma screamed. The accused continued to assault her with his fists and seeing two other persons coming there, he ran away. Bhagyamma was thereafter taken to the town and ultimately to the hospital. The hospital sent a memo to the police and in the meanwhile, her own relations were informed and they came to the hospital. The police took down the complaint of Bhagyamma after which...

P.S. Sundaram and anr. Vs. Pramod

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR567

M.B. Vishwanath, J.1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant on merits.2. This appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 29.10.1990 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. IX, Bangalore, in M.V.C.No. 749/86 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,06,000/- to the claimant-1st respondent.3. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. It is contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The claimant-respondent claimed Rs. 2,34,860/- as compensation.4. The accident happened this way:On 26.12.1985 at about 9.00 a.m. when the ten year old boy -claimant was crossing Bangalore - Sarjapura road from south to north, the lorry bearing No. TDQ 1266 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. Consequently, the respondent-claimant sustained serious bodily injuries. 5. P.W.3 - Dr. Arun B. Kilpadi, Surgeon, at St. John's Medical College Hospital, has stated in his evidence ...