Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1888
1. The instant appeal is filed by the accused to challenge the judgment and order of sentence dt. 25-3-91 passed by the Special Judge. Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore for the offence under Secs. 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, read with Sec. 19 of the 'Karnataka Edible Oils Act'. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Smt. M. Gayathri appearing for the learned Counsel Sri C. H. Hanumantharaya and Sri B. H. Satish appearing for the respondent-State. I have also perused the records. 3. The facts in brief of the case are as follows : That on 2-6-87, the appellant being the owner of the Government Fair Price Depot situated in Hagalahally, sold 100 kgs. of palmolein oil which was supplied to him for the purpose of distribution to the ration card holders of Hagalahally Fair Price Depot to P.W. 1 - P. R. Veerachandrappa alias Vijaya Kumar without distributing the same to the ration card holders and the same was done by the appellant for the purpose of making profit and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR875
ORDERH.L Dattu, J1. The constitutional validity of Explanation to first proviso to subsection (1.A) of Section 5 of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) as introduced by Section 3 of Karnataka Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1996 w.e.f. 1.4.1996 is under challenge in this batch of Writ Petitions by wholesale dealers in Karnataka, doing business in liquor.2. I may refer to the facts in W.P. 21980-981 of 1996, which is representative of and typifies the content in which of and typifies the content in which the question arises. The petitioners are engaged in the business of Indian Manufactured liquor (IML) and registered as dealers under the provisions of the Act. In the course of business, the petitioners purchase I.M.L from other manufacturers and effect sale of such goods to other retail dealers.3. Before I advert to and evaluate the merits of the contentions, it is appropriate to refer to statutory provisions. The levy of sales tax on certain alcoholic liquors for human ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR844
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J.1. This petition is filed for quashing the order dated March 4, 1993 (Annexure-P) issued by the State Government rejecting the review filed by the first respondent and six others. 2. The facts leading to this case are as follows: Sy.Nos. 2/2 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas situated at Ittamadu Village, Uttarahalli hobli, was purchased by one David Jambiah and the members of his family under the registered Sale Deed dated June 25, 1983. Those very persons established a Society called the WEBSTERS CHILDRENS HOME and registered the same under Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The said Websters Children Home constructed a school building on the land in question and also a play ground. That on April 29, 1988 the Society and the members including the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 filed an application before the Government under Section 20 of the Act for permission to transfer the land on which the school building and play ground are situated to the Society. The sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997(92)ELT66(Kar); ILR1997KAR1913
ORDER1. That the RTO, Karwar had launched criminal cases against the petitioner under Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) for the alleged offence under Section 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Act on the allegation that the vehicles bearing Nos. MWT 3443 and MTG 3667 were seized by the accused and the same were under his custody without paying tax payable under the Act for different periods. Petitioner is an officer of the Customs Department of the Government of India and functions under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. On the basis of the complaint, the learned JMFC, Karwar has taken cognizance and issued process to the petitioner. The Department of Customs is directly under the control of Ministry of Defence, Union of India. In response to these summons the petitioner had appeared and on one occasion he could not appear. Therefore the learned Magistrate had issued NBW against the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner has filed these pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997(4)KarLJ627
1. All these criminal appeals are filed under Section 278(3) of Criminal Procedure Code by the Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Central Government with special leave to file the appeals against the judgment dated 12-4-1991 passed by the Additional Munsiff and JMFC, Bellary in CC Nos. 3178/86 to 3187/86 acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences under para 76(d) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 read with S. 14(1A) and 14-A(a) of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. 2. As the common points of law and facts are involved in all these criminal-appeals, all the matters are heard together and disposed of with this common order. 3. I heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants in all the appeals and Sri C. M. Desai, Advocate appearing for the respondent/accused No. 2 in all the appeals. The respondent No. 1 is served with notices in all the appeals and it remained absent. 4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1122
1. All these criminal appeals are filed under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by the Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Central Government with special to leave to file the appeals against the judgment dated April 12, 1991, passed by the Additional Munsiff and JMFC Bellary, in C.C. Nos. 3187 of 1986, acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Para 76(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, read with Section 14(1-A) and 14-A(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provision Act, 1952. 2. As common points of law and facts are involved in all these criminal appeals all the matters are heard together and disposed of with this common order. 3. I heard Sri Ashok Harnahalli, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants in all the appeal, and Sri C. M. Desai, Advocate appearing for Respondent/accused No. 2 in all the appeals. Respondent No. 1 is served with notice in all the appeals and it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1378
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore allowing I.A.20 filed by the first defendant for permission to cross examine defendant-2 who is examined as DW-1.2. Plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale alleging that the defendants who are sister and brother have executed the same. In the defence filed by defendant-2, it is contended that he is the general power of attorney holder of defendant-1 which fact is disputed by the first defendant. Defendant-1 has denied the claim of the plaintiff that she has also joined hands with defendant-2 in execution of agreement of sale consideration.3. After the evidence of the plaintiff was closed, defendant-1 filed an application praying permission to examine herself after the evidence of defendant-2. The Trial Court has permitted her to do so. Thereafter, defendant-2 was examined as DW-1 and cross examined by the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)149CTR(Kar)521
R.P. Sethi, C.J.Constitutional validity of sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, was challenged by the appellants-assesses in various writ petitions filed by them, which were dismissed by the learned single judge, vide the judgment impugned in these appeals.2. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the offending sections were penal in nature, without providing for any safeguards or even an opportunity of being heard, which violated the constitutional guarantees of the assessees. It was submitted that as the offending provisions were penal in character, it required that the assessees were entitled to be heard before they could be punished under the said provisions and as the opportunity of being heard has been denied, the offending sections were liable to be struck down as ultra vires. It was argued in the alternative that in case the sections are not declared unc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR758; [1998]232ITR62(KAR); [1998]232ITR62(Karn)
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Constitutional validity of ss. 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, was challenged by the appellants-assesses in various writ petitions filed by them, which were dismissed by the learned single Judge, vide the judgment impugned in these appeals. 2. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the offending sections were penal in nature, without providing for any safeguards or even an opportunity of being heard, which violated the constitutional guarantees of the assessees. It was submitted that as the offending provisions were penal in character, it required that the assessee were entitled to be heard before they could be punished under the said provisions and as the opportunity of being heard has been denied, the offending sections were liable to be struck down as ultra vires. It was argued in the alternative that in case the sections are not declared unconstituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1997)DMC453; II(1997)DMC635; 1997(3)KarLJ177
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The original petitioner is unrepresented before us, despite the fact that office has despatched the notice to him on the address which he himself has indicated in the proceeding. The non-appearance of the petitioner is significant in so far as it is presumed that if the petitioner was interested in the confirmation of the decree that he ought to have been before this Court or that he ought to have been vigilant enough to ascertain as to when the decree would be placed for confirmation before the Court and seen to it that he was duly represented. This has not been done.2. On the other hand, the respondent-wife is represented before us and we have heard the learned Counsel and he has submitted that this is not a case in which the decree ought to be confirmed. He points out to us that there are certain mandatory requirements under the Indian Divorce Act; the first of them is that in a case where the ground of adultery has been pleaded and the adulterer has been named, ...
Tag this Judgment!