Karnataka Court February 1996 Judgments
M/S. Instruments Incorporated Vs. M/S. Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant360; ILR1996KAR1893; 1996(3)KarLJ422
1. This appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 2738/81 on the file of the X Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore is filed challenging its order dated July 9, 1990 passed on issue No. 4 on the basis of evidence therein, which was framed on the point of jurisdiction, holding that in view of the relevant contractual clause relating to the place of suing in case of dispute arising out of the suit transaction between the parties, it has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's suit; and, accordingly, notifying the plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 10-A(a) of the Code of CivilProcedure (C.P.C. for short) to represent his plaint to the proper Court.2. The facts giving raise to this appeal may be stated as under :The plaintiff is a proprietary concern engaged in manufacturing of the industrial devices called 'Flow Meters' for oils, petroleums etc., and in dealing thereof. Its office is located at Bangalore.3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were defendants in the said O.S. No. 2738/81. They are refer...
Tag this Judgment!Kanoria Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1558; 1996(7)KarLJ638; (1997)ILLJ95Kant
1. The petitioner challenges the validity of Annexure-K order passed by the Government. The facts in this case are as follows : The petitioner is a Cement Factory, employing more than 450 workers. There are two units. On certain alleged misconduct committed by the 4th respondent, he was proceeded against, which resulted in the workers launching a strike. The dispute regarding the disciplinary action taken against the 4th respondent is pending adjudication before the Labour Court evidenced by Annexure-J. At this stage the Government has passed Annexure-K order calling upon the Management to pay 75 per cent of wages to the workers. This order has been issued in exercise of the power under Section 10(B) of the I.D. Act. The challenge against the said order is essentially on the allegation that this order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. The management contends that before the issuance of Annexure-K order, the petitioner ought to have been heard and only after bearing it an ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramangouda Hanumantha Patil Vs. High Court of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1730
ORDERRaveendran, J.1. The petitioners in these three Writ Petitions are applicants for the post of District Judges in response to the notification dated 5.9.1995 issued by the respondent (High Court of Karnataka) under Article 233 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules 1983 ('Rules' for short) inviting applications for the purpose of recommending the appointment of 11 members of the Bar, by direct recruitment. The said notification specifies the following minimum qualification for such direct recruitment, in accordance with Article 233 and Rule 2 (Category 2) of the Rules:a) The applicant must be a holder of a degree in law from any recognised university.b) The applicant must be practicing on the last date fixed for submission of application as an Advocate and must have so practised for not less than seven years as on such date.c) The applicant must not have attained the age of 48 years on the last date fixed for sub...
Tag this Judgment!Shekhar Institute of Commerce Vs. the Commissioner of Public Instructi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2374; 1996(3)KarLJ373
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28.11.1987 passed by the Commissioner, Public Instruction, Karnataka, rejecting the Appeal filed by the petitioner from order dated 11/20-6-1987 passed by the Joint Director, Public Instruction, by which order, the Joint Director, Public Instruction had cancelled/withdrawn the permission dated 20-8-1986, for shifting of the School.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was granted permission to run the Shekhar Institute of Commerce at No. 4(old) 4A(new), 2nd Cross, 1st lane, Kempapura Agrahara, Magadi Road, Corporation Division 32, Bangalore-23. Thereafter on 17-2-1984, the petitioner moved an application for permission to shift that Institute to the building No. 37, 'Sreesadana', Vinayaka Layout, Bangalore-79. According to the petitioner, by order dated 20-8-1986, the Joint Director of Public Instruction, Bangalore, granted the permiss...
Tag this Judgment!Khoday Ribbon Carbon and Allied Industries Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1154; 1996(6)KarLJ756
ORDERBharuka, J. 1. Petitioners are engaged in the business of either selling denatured spirit or the same is required by them for manufacturing the denatured spirituous preparations. Accordingly, as required under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise (Denatured Spirit and Denatured Spirituous Preparations) Rules, 1967 (in short, the Rules'), they hold any one of the licences in Form Nos.DL-3, DL-5, DL-6 and DL-9 as prescribed under Rules 9(1), 11(1), 12(1) and 15(1) of the Rules respectively. By Notification No.GSR 61 dated 21-2-1974 the State Government had prescribed the licence fee of Rs. 100/- for DL-2, Rs. 50/- for DL-3, Rs. 100/- for DL-5, Rs. 200/- for DL-6 and Rs. 50 for DL-9 by incorporating the same in the aforesaid Rules. Subsequently by the impugned Notification No.FD PES 92 dated 21-11-1992, by amending the said Rules, the licence fee has been substantially enhanced in the following manner:Licencein Form No. Original Licence Fee Enhanced Licence Fee DL-3 Rs.50/- Rs.10,0...
Tag this Judgment!Duphex Chemicals Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1146; 1996(6)KarLJ748
ORDERBharuka, J. 1. Petitioner herein has challenged the Constitutional validity of the Notification No. FD 13 PES 92 dated 21-11-1992 (Annexure-A) whereby, by amending Rule 4(2) of the Karnataka Excise (Rectified Spirit) Rules 1967 (in short, the Rules'), the Government has substantially raised the fee for obtaining the licence thereunder; and sought for quashing the consequential demand notice dated 22-2-1993 in No.EXE/RS.II/201/92-93 (Annexure-B).2. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of various chemicals and drug intermediaries. In the said manufacturing process rectified spirit is used as one of the raw materials. Accordingly, as required under the provisions of the Rules, it has obtained Form RS(2).3. Rule 2(f) of the Rules defines 'rectified spirit' as meaning 'plain un-denatured alcohol of a strength not less than 52 OP and includes absolute alcohol. Admittedly, it is non-potable and is commonly known as industrial alcohol. Rule 3(1) provides that any person desiring to po...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Lambadi Chandranaik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2732; ILR1996KAR1600; 1996(2)KarLJ157
ORDER1. Since this matter can be finally disposed of at this stage itself it is taken up for final disposal. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner. 2. The State has preferred this Revision Petition against the order dated 5-7-95 in CC No. 4115/91 on the file of the Court of the Addl. Munsiff and JMFC Bellary, closing the prosecution case and dropping the proceedings because the accused in the case could not be served either with summons or non-bailable warrants issued against them. 3. The Cowl Bazaar Police in Bellary filed a charge sheet in CC No. 4115/91 against the accused Lambadi Chandra Naik and Lambadi Dharma Naik. They showed Lambadi Dharma Naik as absconding in the charge-sheet. Attempts were made by the prosecution to serve the summons and non-bailable warrants issued by the Court against both the accused between 18-11-1992 and 4-7-1995, over a period of 3 years, but they did not succeed. A proclamation appears to have been issued but was of...
Tag this Judgment!Jayalaxmi Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asse ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1474; 1996(41)KarLJ260
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. Heard Sri B. V. Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of assessment dated January 1, 1996, pertaining to the assessment year 1994-95 to the extent the purchase turnover of groundnut seeds at Rs. 15,00,000 had been subjected to purchase tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, through he has a right of appeal under the Act but, it has become futile because of the order of the Tribunal holding against the petitioner in relation to assessment for the previous year, therefore he insists that the issue involved should be decided by this Court straightaway in writ jurisdiction.4. The petitioner is running a decorticating mill. During the assessment year in question, he had purchased groundnut seeds worth Rs. 15 lakhs from unregistered dealers. Those seeds were subsequently sold to persons who had exported the same to outside India....
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Jaya Suri Vs. Deputy Commissioner for Transports, Bangalore Divis ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1765; 1996(3)KarLJ626
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.90 (Annexure-C) passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport in an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, ('the Taxation Act' for short). By this order it has been affirmed that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 66,682/- as tax for the period 1.8.1985 to 30.6.1990 as per Item 8(b) of Part-A of the Schedule to the Act.2. Admittedly the petitioner is the owner of the omnibus bearing No. CAV.489. According to her, she is running a Nursery School under the name of Tiny Twinklers Play Home Nursery' at J.P.Nagar in Bangalore and the vehicle is used for the purpose of carrying children to the School and to drop them back near their residence. Therefore according to her, the tax can be levied in respect of vehicle only under Item 8(c) of Part-A of the Schedule to the Act.3. Section 3 of the Taxation Act provides that a tax at the rates specified in Part-A of the Schedule shall be ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Hanumantha Rao Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant296; ILR1996KAR1445
Acts/Rules/Orders:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 11 and 96 - Order 6, Rule 17 - Order 41, Rule 1;Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52Cases Referred:Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1974 SC 1126;Harchandra Das v. Bholanath Das, ILR (1935) 62 Cal 701;Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh, AIR 1995 SC 1377;Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao, 1956 SCR 451, (AIR 1956 SC 593);Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974JUDGEMENT1. In this Regular First Appeal, the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1991 passed in O.S. No. 10349 of 1988 by the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore is impugned. Initially, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal are condoned.2. Initially, this appeal was filed without indicating the provision of law under which the appeal is filed. Later, rectification is made by showing the provision of Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. Having regard to the prayer to e...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »