Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1996(73)FLR1742]; ILR1997KAR2071
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The scope of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') in relation to the powers of the appropriate Government of making reference to Labour Court, Board or Tribunal, is sought to be settled in this appeal. Does the Government have the powers to determine the merits of the claim of the workmen before making reference or is it obligatory upon the Government to make a reference where a primafacie dispute is shown to be in existence? The learned Judge, vide the order impugned in this appeal held that the nature and scope of the scrutiny envisaged under Section 10 authorised the Government to examine the merits of the claim and decline to make a reference upon being satisfied that the grievance projected was baseless, without substance, frivolous or unjustified.2. In order to appreciate the controversy regarding the scope and ambit of Section 10 of the Act, some of the facts which are not in dispute are required to be taken note of. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1999)ACC419; 1999ACJ37
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The short point involved in this appeal is the question as to whether the compensation of Rs. 47,600 which was computed in the present case was adequate. The allied issue that was canvassed centered around the question as to whether the Tribunal was justified in having held the appellant guilty of contributory negligence and to have consequently reduced the compensation payable to him by 50 per cent.2. The appellant's learned advocate has concentrated on the first aspect of the matter. He points out that the appellant who was riding a scooter had stated on oath before the Tribunal that he came out of the cross road to the junction and stopped there because the truck was approaching from his right side. This statement of the appellant has been disbelieved by the learned Member who has analysed the material before him and principally on the basis of the point of impact, has come to the conclusion that it is impossible to accept that the appellant had stopped when he a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]110STC426(Kar)
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. In this revision filed under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act' only) the question which has fallen for our consideration is as to whether the buying commission agents for outside principals like the petitioner are liable to pay the turnover tax as provided under section 6B of the Act. The Tribunal, keeping in view the specific provision contained in this regard under section 11(1) of the Act, has held against the petitioner. 2. Section 11(1) of the Act reads as under : '11. Agents liable to pay tax. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force including this Act, every person who for an agreed commission or brokerage buys or sells on behalf of any principal who is a resident of the State of Karnataka shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 5 or section 6B be assessed to tax or taxes under this Act at the rate or rates leviable thereunder in respect of such purchase or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003]133STC593(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The revision petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'). It is aggrieved by the order dated November 14, 1994 passed by the Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 1055 of 1988.2. The petitioner is a hotelier, selling food and drinks. For the financial year 1983-84 it declared its total taxable turnover at Rs. 5,00,191. But while making the assessment under Section 12(3) of the Act, it was determined at Rs. 6,13,900. Despite the said fact, the assessing authority granted the benefit of composition under Section 17(4) of the Act as substituted by Karnataka Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act No. 23 of 1983). But the said order was set aside under suo motu revisional jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, under Section 21 of the Act by its order dated July 27, 1988, on the ground that for the year in question no composition was available in the case of hoteliers, having total turnover above Rs. 2,50,000. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1997]107STC601(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These two revision petitions are directed against the common order dated June 18, 1993 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 943 and 944 of 1991 sustaining a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under section 12B(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short, 'the State Act' only) and of Rs. 1,00,000 under section 18(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 12B(3) of the State Act (in short, 'the Central Act' only). 2. The penalties pertain to the assessment year 1986-87. It is not in dispute that the assessee, which is a limited company manufacturing machine tools, had failed to deposit advance tax within the time-limit as provided under section 12B of the State Act. Accordingly, it was subjected to penalties of Rs. 3,58,855 and Rs. 10,14,215 under the State and the Central Acts respectively by two separate orders dated March 29, 1990 passed by the assessing authority. The appeals preferred against the said orders to the Deputy Commissioner of Commerci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR322; 2000(3)KarLJ48
ORDER1. Sri N.K. Ramesh, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent.2. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board ('KIADB' for short) a statutory Body executed a deed of sale dated 29-8-1996 (Annexure-B) in favour of the petitioner in regard to a plot of land allotted to the petitioner as per terms and conditions contained in the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 4-6-1985 (Annexure-A). The petitioner presented the said deed for registration before the Jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. The Sub- Registrar having registered the document, being of the opinion that the property was undervalued, made a reference to the respondent under Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('Act' for short). In pursuance of it, the respondent (District Registrar) has initiated proceedings under Section 45-A for determination of market value and has passed a provisional order dated 29-4-1997 (Annexure-D) proposing to determine the market value as Rs. 61,53,671/-, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ53; 1997(4)KarLJ81
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the charge-sheet and dismiss the complaint in Spl. Case No. (SC & ST) 60/96 for the alleged offence under Sec. 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'the Act') and Ss. 323, 448, 506 of IPC pending on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.2. The brief facts of the case are that one K. Puttaswamy, Commercial Tax Officer, lodged a complaint with the respondent-police on 2-3-96 at about 8.45 p.m. on the complaint received through appeal alleging that on 28-12-95 at about 12 noon appointment was fixed by the complainant to produce the accounts for the year 1992-93. The Group 'D' worker was directed to hold the parties at the door since the complainant was engaged in signing cheques and challans. Meanwhile the petitioner rushed to the chamber by pushing away the Group 'D' employee and abused the complainant saying ' ' and threatened that no one should give any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR838
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has arisen from the judgment and decree dated December 15, 1990 passed in Regular Appeal No. 12/1990 whereby the Lower Appellate Court had dismissed the defendant's appeal and had confirmed the decree of the Trial Court in Suit No. 164/1989 (old Number 64 of 1984) whereby the Trial Court had decreed the plaintiff's suit for partition of the suit properties. It has been contended before me that there is no dispute about the quantum of share etc., The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that main defence of the defendant-1 was that there had been complete partition of the joint family properties belonging to the appellant and the respondents. But the courts below have concurrently recorded the finding to the effect that on an earlier occasion earlier to the filing of the suit, there had been no partition of the propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)176; 1997CriLJ4598; 1997(4)KarLJ23
ORDER1. In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of taking cognizance on 3 grounds, viz. (a) the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offence before recording the sworn statement; (b) that the list of witnesses was not furnished to the accused along with the summons; and (c) that the firm has not been arraigned as an accused. 2. As far as the 1st contention of the petitioner that the Magistrate has not taken cognizance but proceeded to record the sworn statement and hence it is illegal, is unsustainable in view of the decisions rendered by their Lordships in : 1996CriLJ408 : : [1973]2SCR66 : : 1976CriLJ1361 and ILR 1994 Kant 2991 : (1994 Cri LJ 3115). Wherein it is held that cognizance is deemed to have been taken when the Magistrate applied his judicial mind for proceeding under S. 200 and this position has been explained in the decisions referred to above. In this case, the Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of the witnesses and after being sati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3202; [1998]230ITR880(KAR); [1998]230ITR880(Karn)
Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question an order passed by the Jt. Commr. of Agrl. IT, Bangalore, dt. 27th March, 1989, in suo motu revisional proceedings, whereby he has set aside the assessment order made by the Agrl. ITO, Chickmagalur, and directed him to redo the same after determining the status of the assessee as HUF. The order dt. 15th December, 1989, passed by the Agrl. ITO in pursuance of the above direction assessing the petitioner as an HUF has also been assailed. 2. The petitioner, his brother, Sri A. M. Manjunath, and his mother, Smt. Puttamma, were assessed to Agrl. IT under the Karnataka Agrl. IT Act, 1957, as an HUF with Sri A. Malegowda as its Karta. For the asst. yr. 1981-82, the Karta of the HUF filed a return of income dt. 6th February, 1992, declaring an income of Rs. 91,621.20 in their capacity as tenants-in-common. Reliance in support was placed upon an agreement dt. 5th March, 1980, executed by the memb...
Tag this Judgment!