Karnataka Court April 1996 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.
Raichur Tuff Treads Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1789; 1996(41)KarLJ609
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The short question involved in the present case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption from the tax payable under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act') on the retreading materials consumed in execution of the retreading contract of worn out old tyres in terms of the Notifications No. S.O. 931 dated June 8, 1989 and No. S.O. 1371 dated June 21, 1991 (hereinafter 'the exempting notifications') issued under section 8A of the Act. 2. The petitioner-company herein is engaged in the business of retreading of tyres. It is registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Act. Its unit has been granted a certificate by the Directorate of Industries (annexure A) certifying it to be a registered small-scale industrial unit. It is aggrieved by the issuance of proposition notices pertaining to the periods 1990-91 and 1991-92 (annexures B and C) whereunder tax has been proposed to be levied in terms of section 5B of...
Pushpanjali Touring Talkies Vs. Entertainment Tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1967; 1997(42)KarLJ11
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. Rule. Heard both the parties.2. Petitioner is the exhibitor of cinematograph owning a theatre. He questions the validity of the order dated 4.11.1995 (Annexure-A) which has been passed under Section 6-A(3) read with Section 6-A(4) of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958. His objections are two fold, viz. (i) the Entertainment Tax Officer has no authority to levy health cess and (ii) the order of penalty suffers from a mistake apparent on the face of the record since it could have been only Rs. 9,726/- whereas penalty imposed is Rs. 10,712/-.3. As per the impugned order the assessment made against the petitioner is to the following effect:Amounts Amounts BalanceAssessed Paid Payable_________ _________ _________Entertainment Tax Rs. 8,596,00 Rs. 200.00 Rs. 8,396.00Show Tax Rs. 1,840.00 Rs. 510.00 Rs. 1,330.00Health Cess Rs. 276.00 Rs. 77.00 Rs. 199.00' 4. So far as first ground is concerned, I may notice herein the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Health ...
N. Balasubramanian Vs. Can Bank Financial Services Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2047]; ILR1996KAR2385; 1996(5)KarLJ511
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. The only question that falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioner is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case entitled to be represented by a lawyer in the domestic enquiry initiated against him by the Respondent-Company. That representation in a domestic enquiry by a legal practitioner is not a component of the principles of natural justice is no longer resintegra having been authoritatively settled by a large number of judgments of the Apex Court including the one in CRESCENT DYES AND CHEMICALS LIMITED v. RAM NARESH TRIPATHI, : (1993)ILLJ907SC where upon an elaborate review of the case law on the subject, the Supreme Court summed up the legal position thus:-'It is, therefore, clear from the above case law that the right to be represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statute, rules, regulations or Standing Orders. A delinquent has no right to be represented through coun...
Hotel Bheema Vs. the Telecom District Engineer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3072; 1996(7)KarLJ273
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner who is running a lodging house has prayed for quashing the order dated 20th February, 1992, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-H, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 12,114/- towards the arrears of telephone bill in respect of STD PT 27198 and also the demand note dated 21st February 1992 issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount referred to in bill, Annexure-H.2. Sri Ram Bhat, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the petitioner is not a subscriber in respect of telephone STD PT 27198 and one Sri Aslam is admittedly the subscriber to the said telephone. Therefore, he submitted that it is not permissible for the respondents to call upon the petitioner to pay the amount referred to in bill/order Annexures G and H, and in the event of failing to pay the amount demanded in the said bill to disconnect the telephone of the petitioner. He su...
Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal and Another Vs. Principal Sec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant114; 1997(4)KarLJ329
ORDER1. Dr. T.M.A. Pai Foundation, petitioner-2 herein, is a registered Trust. This Trust had established and is administering the Manipal Institution of Technology (petitioner No. 1) which is an Engineering College imparting teaching in various branches of Engineering and is hereinafter referred to as 'the College'. This college has been declared as a Konkani speaking linguistic minority institution within the meaning of Art. 30 of the Constitution of India.2. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the Government Order dated 24-8-1994 (Annexure-A) whereunder the Government has fixed total and cornerwise intake of the linguistic/ religious minority institutions of the State, and for a further direction to the respondents-- Director of Technical Education and the Bangalore University to approve the admissions made by the management of the College against NRI quota during the academic yea'r 1994-95 in different courses of Bachelor of Engineering Degree...
Rajatha Enterprises Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1772; 1996(6)KarLJ1
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. In these two Writ Petitions, petitioners are aggrieved by the mode and manner of levy and collection of the property tax by the respondent - Commissioner of Bangalore Corporation in respect of property No. 812/2 located on OTC Road, Bangalore. According to them, the assessment and demand of impugned tax is contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ('the Act', in short) and the measures laid down for the said purpose by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions in this regard.2. I may first set out the relevant undisputed facts. Property No. 812/1 which is a land measuring 6000 sq.ft. is owned by the Government. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, invited offers for leasing out the said land with an object of permitting construction of the shopping complex cum school building on the basis of a plan approved by the Government. Pursuant to the said offer, which was 1n the form of a tender notice dated 17.8.1978, property was leased...
Claude Pinto and Others Vs. M.V. Shankar Bhat and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant366; ILR1996KAR2229; 1996(3)KarLJ342
1. The appellants herein, the defendants in the trial Court, have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11-3-1993 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O.S. No. 26/1981 decreeing the suit of the respondents for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 4-12-1979.2. I have heard the Counsel for the appellants and the Counsel for the respondents fully and perused the records of thecase. 3. The respondents have filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 4-12-1979 executed by the deceased first appellant to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the respondents. Hereinafter the appellants and the respondents will be referred according to their ranks in the original suit on the file of the trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs filed the suit O. S. No. 26/1981 against the sole defendant Sri Claude Pinto for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 4-12-1979 executed by him to sell the suit schedule property in favour ...
Subbe Gowda and Others Vs. P.S. Saldana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)24; 1997CriLJ1037; 1996(3)KarLJ124
ORDER1. The short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether once a complaint has been investigated by the police and a 'B' report is submitted, it is accepted by the Court and the accused are discharged, whether the complainant can file a second complaint on the same allegations and the accused can be prosecuted. 2. The facts which have led to this question may briefly be stated as follows :- The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners-accused for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 149, 307 and 427 IPC before the Alur Police. On a reference under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. being made, the police after investigation submitted a 'B' report to the Court of the Munsiff and JMFC, Sakleshpura. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 22-5-1990 accepted the 'B' report, passed an order regarding the properties which had been seized, and discharged the accused who were attending the proceedings. Subsequently, the complainant-responden...
Combined Industries Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: [1999]112STC229(Kar)
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present revision petition relates to assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Central Act') for the assessment year 1981-82. The original assessment against the petitioner was completed on June 13, 1984. Subsequently, pursuant to certain seizures in relation to the business transactions of the petitioner, it was subjected to reassessment proceeding which culminated in a reassessment order dated December 28, 1988. The only question raised on behalf of the petitioner is that keeping in view the provisions of section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, 'the State Act') the order of reassessment is barred by limitation.2. Section 9(2) of the Central Act, inter alia, empowers the authorities under the State Act to assess or reassess a dealer in relation to Central sales tax as per the provisions of the State Act. Section 12A of the State Act provides for reassessment and also prescribes the time limitation for the same...
Kum. Rukmi B. Ray Vs. the Commissioner for Public Instructions and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant394; 1996(3)KarLJ663
ORDER1. I have heard the petitioner's learned advocate, the learned advocate who represents the R. 3 College as also the learned Govt. Advocate.2. The case made out is that the petitioner has been suffering from epilepsy for the last several years and that this was the reason why she was unable to obtain the minimum attendance requirement. The petitioner's learned advocate relies on a circular dt. 22-3-95 issued by the Govt. of Karnataka wherein, it has been pointed out that even in those of the cases where the student falls short of the minimum attendance requirement that if there is a genuine, medical ground which is established to the Satisfaction of the college authorities, that the head of the institution shall have the discretion to condone the short fall of attendance. Learned advocate submits that having regard to this position, that the Respondent No. 3 should have condoned the short fall of attendance principally because the circular mentions that if the academic performance ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »