Karnataka Court January 1997 Judgments

Sri Muninarasaiah Vs. T.C. Anjanappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1971

ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that since the offence complained of is under Section 395 I.P.C. which is an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions under the provisions of Section 395(2) I.P.C. it is mandatory for the Court taking cognizance to examine the complainant and all the witnesses on oath. From the record, petitioner's learned advocate demonstrates that this has not been done and he therefore contends that the taking of cognizance is faulty. The respondent's learned advocate submitted that if one were to look at Section 202 in its entity as also several of the reported decisions, the position that emerges is that the discretion is left to the trial Court to record the substances of the charge for purposes of deciding on the question of issue of process. Basically, what is contended is that this is not the stage where the trial has commenced and therefore if the complainant was examined and the Court came to the conclu...

Sri Muniyappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1058; 1997(3)KarLJ80

ORDERG.P. Shivaprakash, J. 1. The lands of the petitioners situated in Siddanayakanahalli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore District, were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of construction of 220 KV Station for Karnataka Electricity Board pursuant to the notification dated 18.10.1994. Thereafter, an award dated 6.4.1995 has been passed as could be seen from copy of the notice dated 7.4.1995, marked as Annexure-B. According to the petitioners, the said notice was received by them in the second week of April, 1995.2. It appears on 1.7.1995 the petitioners submitted written applications to the third respondent in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act requiring him to make reference to the Civil Court for determination of the amount of compensation. The third respondent by his endorsement dated 17.8.1995, copy of which is marked as Annexure-E has declined to consider their applications on the ground that they were n...

Dr. Sandhya Upadhyaya Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ178

ORDER1. The petitioners are the students of postgraduate degree course in medical sciences conducted by the respondent-Karnataka University. They had joined the course subsequent to the academic year 1992-93. They have approached this Court for seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant exemption of one year to them in post-graduate course undertaken by them.2. The question raised by the petitioners regarding the power of the University to grant exemption of one year to the petitioners, thereby reducing duration of the PG Course to only two years needs to be examined, keeping in view the imperative directions of the Supreme Court given in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others v Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others , the respective provisions contained in the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act') and the relevant ordinance and regulations framed by the University in respect of the said PG Course.3. The Supreme Court having noticed that the p...

Sonic Electro Hem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karn ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1997]107STC283(Kar)

ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Shri Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Pleader, is directed to take notice for the respondent. 2. The petitioner in this petition claims to be the sole distributor of fragrance mats and mosquito mats manufactured by M/s. Sonic Electrochem Private Ltd., 38, Patel Nagar, Indore. 3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the clarifications dated 12th October, 1989 and 9th January, 1990, copies of which have been produced as annexures B and C, respectively, issued by the respondent. 4. In clarification, annexure B, the respondent-Commissioner pursuant to the clarification sought by the petitioner by means of his application dated 9th August, 1989, a copy of which has been produced as annexure A, had clarified that the insecticide mats are liable for tax at the rate of 10 per cent at first sale point under entry No. 11 of Part M of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In clarifica...

M. Muniyappa and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

L. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties. Issue Rule. Petitioners 1 and 2 were the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha respectively of the Neralur Grama Panchayat. On 7th September, 1996 more than one-third of the total number of members of the said panchayat gave a written notice to the third respondent under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of no-confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the flutes') to move a motion of no-confidence against the petitioners. In pursuance thereof, notices were issued under Sub-rule(2) of Rule-3 of the Rules to the elected members of the said Grama Panchayat convening a meeting for consideration of the said motion at the office of the Grama Panchayat on 10th October, 1996. The said meeting was presided over by the third respondent. Out of the nineteen elected members of the Grama Panchayat, fifteen members participated in the meeting; fourteen members voted for the motion and one m...

Nandi Printers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2001]122STC164(Kar)

ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. These matters arise under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the assessment years 1985-86 to 1988-89. The petitioner before us is a manufacturer of paper cartons and playing cards. For the purpose of its manufacture, it purchases paper boards and duplex boards from outside the State and brings the same into local area. For the assessment years in question, the petitioner filed returns under the Act claiming exemption with respect to paper boards and duplex boards on the basis that the expression 'raw material, component parts and inputs' under Explanation II to entry 16B of the Schedule to the Act excludes 'paper'. Thus, it was contended that no tax could be levied under the Act now. The assessing authority did not agree with this contention for all these years. Matters were carried in appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority also af...

Cit Vs. Srinivasa Textile Processing Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Kar)10

OrderS. Rajendra Babu, J.The question referred for our opinion is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the commission paid to the agents should not be treated as sales promotion expenses so as to attract the provisions of section 37(3A) for disallowance?'2. The assessee for the assessment year 1984-85 had paid a sum of Rs. 4,26,386 by way of sale commission. In the assessment this expenditure was disallowed in the light of section 37(3A) on the basis that such amount would amount to sale promotion. The matter was carried in appeal. The appellate authority held that the commission paid could not be treated as sale promotions and granted the relief as contemplated under section 37(3A) of the Act. When the matter was carried in second appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal took the view that the expenditure had been incurred on sales already effected by the agents and that it could not be treated as sales promo...

The Executive Engineer (Electrical), Karnatka Electricity Board, Hubli ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1998(79)FLR519]; 1998(4)KarLJ263

ORDER1. This petition is field under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the award dated 17-5-1990 passed in Reference No. ID 180 of 1986 (Annexure-A) and pass such other reliefs.2. The brief facts of the case are: the 1st respondent was appointed by the petitioner as TTR driver on daily wages by an Order No. YG/F. 35/6711-13, dated 21-1-1981 for a period of 3 months subject to certain conditions incorporated therein. He reported for duty on 21-1-1981 and was driving jeep bearing No. MER 3013. On 29-4-1981 at 10.05 a.m. the jeep met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent. The Police Sub-Inspector, Ambika Nagar after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet against the respondent before the JMFC Court, Haliyal. The driver was arrested by the police and was later released on bail. On 13-5-1981 he was terminated from service. Subsequently the Criminal C...

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shivalingamma and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999ACJ1484

Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the present appellant, i.e., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., which has been respondent No. 5 in the main claim petition, challenging the order passed by Mr. V. Jaganathan, Addl. Distt. Judge, M.A.C.T. II, Mandya, disposing of the application under Section 140 of the Act and ordering that all the petitioners together are entitled for interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 under Section 140 of the Act with simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till date of realisation. The Tribunal further found that the respondents, i.e., the owner and insurer of the tractor as well as the owner and insurer of the trailer are jointly and severally responsible to pay the sum of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioners.2. In application it has been alleged that on 9.7.1991 the deceased Shanthu was going through 'A' Circle, Malavalli Town towards Pete and he was moving on the...

Muniswamy Gowda H. Vs. Management of Ksrtc and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR509

R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. The applicants who are employees of the respondent-Corporation filed Writ Petitions challenging the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them under the provisions of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) mainly on the ground that the said Regulations were non existent, void being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called as the '1946 Act'). It was submitted that the Regulations allegedly framed under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act) were neither reasonable nor fair. The appellants prayed for issuance of directions prohibiting the respondents, their agents, servants and others acting on their behalf from taking any action against them under the regulation or in pursuance of the endorsement issued ...