Karnataka Court May 1996 Judgments
State of Karnataka Vs. Marimalladevaru
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR559
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. I.A.No.II is an application for condonation of delay in filing the second appeal, under the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal is barred by 152 days time. The application for condonation of delay has been supported by Affidavit sworn by a Section Officer of the Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. I have been taken through that affidavit by Learned Government Pleader. A reading of the affidavit dearly shows that no sufficient explanation has been furnished explaining the delay and everything has been taken in an easy going manner by the State Law Officers and the Officers of the Law Department. No doubt it is well settled that in the matter of condonation of delay, party has to explain each day's delay, and in the matter of State Government, looking to the multifarious activities of the State, some lenient view should be taken. But this does not mean that everything should be taken as for granted, even if there is no explanation. The judgment impugned...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagathram and Sons Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Xxii Circle, Gandhinag ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR492
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. A registered dealer doing business in sweetmeats and kharas is before this Court, inter alia, questioning the legality or otherwise of the notices issued by the assessing authority under section 25-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act') for the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. By the said notices, the assessing authority intends to amend completed assessments for the aforesaid years.2. Facts which require to, be noticed for the purpose of this case are Petitioner is a registered dealer doing business in sweetmeats and kharas borne on the files of the respondent-assessing authority. Petitioner in his business premises prepares food (sweetmeats and kharas), stocks it, exhibits for sale and sells it unlike in a place/premises, the business of the supply of meals or refreshments to the public or class of public for consumption in the premises is carried on. The assessing authority while framing assessments for the assessment years ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Rao Vs. Khaja Shabeeruddin, Since Dead by L.Rs. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2774; 1996(3)KarLJ715
ORDERA.B. Murgod, J.1. This Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 18.9.1992 passed in Execution Petition No. 22 of 1991 by the Munsiff, Basavakalyana, dismissing the objections of the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the Execution Petition and directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the decree-holder by ordering issue of warrant for delivery.2. The facts giving rise to the Revision petition are that the decree-holder Khaja Shabeeruddin instituted O.S. 142 of 1972 against the petitioner-defendant No. 1 and two others for recovery of possession of the premises alleging that the premises was leased out to the petitioner under lease agreement Ex.P.1. The suit was dismissed on 30.3.1977. In the appeal R.A. 53 of 1977 taken before the Civil Judge, Bidar, the learned Civil Judge allowed it and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing the petitioner and respondent-7 to deliver possession. This...
Tag this Judgment!A.N. Sangameswara Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)KarLJ531
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia seeking for a direction to the respondents step up the pay scale of the petitioner with effect from 1.6.1982 to bring it on par with the pay scale of Sri Munikrishna, Typist on the establishment of this Court and to grant all such other consequential benefits flowing from such direction. Strangely, petitioner is not questioning the validity or otherwise of the memo of the 2nd respondent dated 14,12.1988 (Annexure-H) and that of the order of the State Government dated 24th November 1988 (Annexure-H2).2. At the outset, it should be noticed that the basis of the claim of the petitioner is mainly on the pretext that the pay scale, duties, functions and responsibilities that the Typist-Copyist and Typist are similar and identical.3. The cause for the grievance of the petitioner emanated only after the issuance of Government Order No. FD 89 SRP 82 dated 14.9.1982. By the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Jagadish Colour Company Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2052
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This case rather raises an important question of law of far reaching consequences having great bearing on the administration of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter in short 'the Act'). This question has arisen particularly in the context of section 3A of the Act which has authorized the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue instructions and clarifications under given circumstances. In purported exercise whereof, it appears, he had been making all sorts of communications with the dealers which have been compiled in volumes overweighing the texts of the Act and the Rules and notification framed/issued thereunder creating more confusions in this branch of tax administration, then really clearing the doubts surrounding the rates of taxes. This is being continued unabated despite the fact that this Court has deprecated such practice more than once. Therefore it is high time that the power of the Commissioner should be clearly delineated and overstepping in ...
Tag this Judgment!Super Market Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1969
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. In the present revision petition the only question of law which has fallen for our consideration is as to what was the rate of tax applicable to paper napkins during the period April 1, 1984 to March 31, 1985. 2. According to the petitioner, the paper napkins sold by it can be subjected to tax at the rate of 8 per cent being covered by Sl. No. 125 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act') or at the rate of 7 per cent under section 5(1) of the Act. But the Tribunal by rejecting the said contention had held the paper napkins sold by the petitioner as falling under Sl. No. 125 of the said Schedule being an article of toilet thereby holding that the same is liable for tax at the rate of 12 per cent. 3. Section 5(1) of the Act as it stood at the material time, inter alia, provided that every dealer shall pay tax for each year's taxable turnover at the rate of 7 per cent at the point of first sale. Notwithstanding this provision...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Textiles and Proofing Industries Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1972; 1996(41)KarLJ615
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is to declare Section 18AA of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 (in short, 'the Act') as unconstitutional being ultra vires the legislative powers of the State Legislature and consequently to quash the order dated 18.11.1995 passed by the second respondent (Annexure-A) holding that the amount of Rs. 1,50,737.00 which had been collected by the petitioner from the customers in excess of its tax liability under the Act, stood forfeited to the Government by operation of Sub-section (3) of the impugned section, apparently for being refunded to the customers in the manner provided under Sub-section (4) thereof.2. The relevant facts lie in a short compass. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm, is engaged in the production and sale of Tarpaulins. During the accounting year ending on 2.11.1986 the petitioner had collected Rs. 1,99,796/- as tax on the sale of Tarpaulins. Subsequent to filing of the returns for the said period,...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevajyothi Ashrama Vs. B.P. Ramamanohara and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2352; 1996(3)KarLJ213
ORDERA.B. Murgod, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against condition Nos. 3 and 6 imposed by the learned Munsiff in O.S.No. 111/90 while rejecting application I.A.II filed by first respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.2. The facts are that the first respondent-plaintiff, son of respondents 2 and 3, instituted the suit O.S.No. 111/90 claiming his 1/3rd share by partition in the property alienated by his parents in favour of the 5th defendant who is the petitioner in this Revision Petition before this Court. The application I.A.II was for interim injunction to prevent the revision petitioner from putting up construction on the plaint schedule property. The said application was contested and after considering the submissions on both sides, the learned Munsiff proceeded to dismiss the application imposing certain conditions of which conditions at Sl.Nos. 3 and 6 are challenged in this Revision Petition.3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›