Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]110STC449(Kar)
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioners, in this batch of petitions, have challenged either the order of reassessment made under section 12A of the Karnataka Sake Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') or the proposition notice issued proposing to reassess the assessment earlier made by the assessing authority under section 12A of the Act. Since the common question of law is raised, all these petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in these petitions, is as to whether the petitioners are liable for payment of turnover tax as provided under section 6B of the Act for the period commencing from April 1, 1991 to August 27, 1991. 3. A few facts, which has bearing for disposal of these petitions and which are not in serious controversy, may be set out as hereunder : The petitioners are all dealers registered under the Act, who are engaged in the business of sale and purchase of raw silk and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)KarLJ31
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Preventive detention or detention without trial is permitted and authorised under the most revered part of the Constitution, Part III, guaranteeing the fundamental rights. Such a detention has to be distinguished from the punitive detention. The object of the preventive detention is to prevent a person not merely from acting in a particular way but from achieving a particular object. The laws relating to preventive detention, though having a source and the authority under the Constitution, are dealt with and regulated under various statutes enacted for the aforesaid purposes. Such laws, regulating preventive detention, have been enacted with the objects spelt out and declared under the relevant statutes. Resort to preventive detention can be had rarely, exceptionally and under specified circumstances. Court of laws in a country, where rule of law prevails, do not encourage, and see with favour, the preventive detention. However, where such detention is resorted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR461
K.L. Dattu, J. 1. The petitioners are workmen and members of KAVIKA Contract Workers Union. The respondent is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The company is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of transformers of various capacities. Their main customer is the State Electricity Board. To carry out the the repairs of failed transformers within the factory premises, the company has engaged the services of one Sri Ethiraj and Sri Siddaramaiah on contract basis. In turn, these contractors have engaged the services of the petitioners to carry out the work within the factory premises as contract labourers. The initial contract with the contractor was for a period of six months with effect from September 1, 1992, with an option for extension for a further period of six months with an interval of three months at the sole discretion of the respondent-company. Indicating several clauses including the above clause, the company had executed a valid contract ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)468; 1998CriLJ2164
ORDER1. The petitioner who is an accused in C.C. No. 376 of 1995 for offences under Sections 341, 324, 448 and 506, Indian Penal Code pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., II Court, Mysore, has filed the petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code challenging the legality of the order dated 28-5-1991 of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the said offences and directing issue of summons to the accused; and praying for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings against him and the order dated 19-9-1995 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in Criminal Revision Petition No. 52 of 1991, affirming the order of the learned Magistrate, is also challenged by him.2. A few undisputed facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated as under:At the relevant time the accused was working as S.I. of Police in N.R. Police Station, Mysore. Respondent 1-Complainant was working as a Physical Education Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)94LLJ784Kant
1. The petitioner is one of the shareholders of the respondent-company holding ten equity shares of Rs. 1,000 each. She has filed the present application under section 433(e) and 433(f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Act'), for winding up of the respondent-company, namely, Combined Power and Energy Systems (P.) Ltd., inter alia, on the ground that it has lost its substratum and it is impossible for the company to carry on its business with the object for which it was constituted with profit. Keeping in view the allegations made in the petition and after due notice to the respondent-company and holding appropriate inquiry the case was admitted on January 25, 1990, by a speaking order. Subsequent to the advertisement some of the creditors have also appeared in the proceedings through Mr. Gopala Hegde in support of the prayer made herein. 2. The husband of the petitioner has been examined as PW-1 and the chairman-cum-managing director of the respondent-company namely, Sri P. V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(6)KarLJ547
ORDER1. This second appeal raises an interesting but equally significant and substantial question of law namely the vexed issue as to whether a Court should enforce a contract if it is vitiated by the doctrine of unconscionability. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant before me who was the original defendant entered into a registered agreement for sale of his house on 1-8-1973, recording a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- for the property against which Rs. 6,000/- was received by him from the plaintiff. It is unnecessary for me to set out the terms of the agreement which is a very simple one and I must say to the credit of the appellant, that unlike the normal order of the day defences wherein everything right upto the plaintiffs name and address is denied and disputed, that the defendant honestly accepted having executed the agreement and having received the amount of Rs. 6,000/-. The agreement prescribed a period of 2 years for completion of the contract and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998ACJ488
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo praying that the notice to respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the vehicle may be dispensed with as the liability of the respondent No. 1, the insurance company is admitted. Mr. Yoga Narasimha, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that he has no objection to dispense with notice to respondent No. 2. Accordingly, notice to respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.2. Though this appeal is listed in the orders list, since the appeal is of the year 1994, with consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent No. 1, this appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.3. The appellant in this appeal is a victim of an unfortunate accident that had taken place on 9.1.1993 at about 11.30 p.m. when he was returning from the mills of Subhadra Textiles of Magadi Main Road on his bicycle after attending his duties as a spinner in the mills of Subhadra Textiles. On account of i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1412
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for redemption of the plaint 'B' Schedule property and for partition of 1/31st share of the plaintiff, was dismissed by the Trial Court on the question of limitation and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, the plaintiffs are before this Court.2. As the suit was disposed of on preliminary issue alone by the Trial Court, and the appellate Court, while rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint, considered the question of limitation only, it has become necessary for me to consider the question of limitation alone.3. But it must be pointed out that the Courts below have committed an error in not following the amendment to Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. The responsibility of the Court is to decide on all issues except as provided for in Sub-rule (2) of Order 14 Rule 2, it is incumbent upon the Court to adjudicate the case on all issues and render finding on all issues though the decision may depend upon one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ1355
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 19.8.1988, delivered by Mr. Mohammed Asif, District Judge/Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chikmagalur, in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 157/86 (M. Padmanabha v. Union of India), assessing Rs. 44,600, as total compensation, but declaring the claimant to be entitled to Rs. 33,450, as the compensation, taking the view that there was contributory negligence of the claimant and that was taken to the extent of 25 per cent and on that basis, the award in favour of the claimant-appellant was for Rs. 33,500 only.2. The claimant-injured, who is the appellant before this Court, had filed the claim petition with the allegations to the effect that on 16.4.1986, he was riding on Shimoga-N.R. Pura Road, on the pillion of motor cycle No. CNA 65, which was being driven and on which the rider was the respondent No. 4, Shabeer Ahmed. According to the claimant's case, the said motor cycle had been insured with the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant165; ILR1998KAR1015; 1998(6)KarLJ587
ORDER1. The petitioners herein are students of M.B, Patil Medical College, Bijapur.A complaint was lodged on 21-1-1997 in the A.P.M.C. Police Station, Bijapur, alleging that an incident of ragging took place on 18-12-1996 in the said college. Accordingly, it is alleged that an FIR was lodged alleging that 4 persons were involved in the ragging incident, namely, (1) Prashant Desai, (2) Mayank Kumar, (3) Shakil Ahmed, and (4) Abdul Aziz. As per Annexure-D dated 31-1-1997, these 4 students and 11 others were suspended from the college. Thereafter proceedings were initiated to rusticate the students involved in the ragging incident from the college. It is alleged that a notice was served on the petitioners on 17-3-1997 calling upon them to appear before the Principal on 26-3-1997. Thereafter Annexure-H rustication order was passed on 27-3-1997 after hearing the petitioners; sixteen students are rusticated. The said order is impugned in these proceedings.2. I have heard Mr. Vivek Reddy and ...
Tag this Judgment!