Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant306; [1998]109STC516(Kar)
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 causes entry of what are known as high density polythene woven sacks in the local area of Arasikere in the Hassan District. These sacks, it appears, are used by the State Forest, Agriculture and Horticulture Departments for raising seedlings. For the assessment period April 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986 the assessing authority has by its order dated 27th of December, 1989 levied entry tax at the rate of 1 per cent on the total turnover of the petitioner on the sacks imported by it into the local area. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the validity of the order as also the demand notice issued on the basis thereof. 2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that HDPE punched woven sacks imported by the petitioner into the local area aforementioned did not fall under entry 16-A of the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997(4)KarLJ677; (1998)ILLJ78Kant
ORDER1. The point for consideration is as to whether an establishment covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act for short) can ever come out of the purview of the Act at all, and if so, in what circumstances and from what date. 2. The petitioner establishment had been covered under the Act. It closed the manufacturing activities with effect from September 7, 1988. The last of its employees left the establishment with effect from April 21, 1989. The petitioner, therefore, contended that the establishment itself having been closed down and not even a single employee being there, the establishment no longer continues to be covered under the Act. The respondent-Provident Fund Authorities, however, contend that, once an establishment gets covered under the Act, there is no way the provisions of the Act would cease to apply to the said establishment. The respondent contends that even if the coverage stopped, in the sense the number of employees ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]108STC128(Kar)
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Karnataka Act No. 8 of 1989) is under challenge in this writ petition. By the said Act, apart from amending the provisions of the section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, an explanation to the same has been added, retrospectively with effect from the first of April, 1970. 2. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, engaged in extraction of oils from oil cakes and rice bran. For purposes of carrying on the said activity, the petitioner purchases firewood for use as fuel. Purchases so made by the petitioner for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84 were brought to tax under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and in the meantime, the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd. : 1988(34)ELT412(SC) while considering an analogous provision contained in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3210; 1998(2)KarLJ127
ORDER1. The petitioners, in this revision petition, are the owners of premises bearing No. 193, Gowramma Hostel Lane, Chickpet, Bangalore-560053. The said premises consists of the ground floor and the first floor. The subject-matter of dispute in this petition relates to the ground floor of the said premises (hereinafter referred to as 'petition schedule premises').2. This petition is directed against the order dated 29th of October, 1992 made in H.R.C. No. 1162 of 1982 passed by the Court of XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for eviction of the respondent.3. The petitioners filed eviction petition against the respondent under Section 21(1)(h), (p) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 20th of April, 1982. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the eviction petition, was that they require the petition schedule premises reasonably and for, bona fide use and occupation, to wit,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1610
ORDER1. The defendant is the appellant herein.2. The suit for recovery of money in Original Suit No. 71 of 1981 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Karwar was decreed on 21-9-1984. On appeal in Regular Appeal No. 70 of 1984, the learned Civil Judge, Karwar, dismissed the same on 12-11-1986 confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence this second appeal by the defendant.3. The suit for recovery of Rs. 9,315/- wherein Rs. 6,000/- is the principal and Rs. 3,315/- as the interest was instituted on the basis of the promissory note. It was alleged in the plaint 'The families of the plaintiff and the defendant knew each other since their forefathers and they had business transactions between them and were having thick friendly relationship with each other. In about 1974, for his plan of starting a beaten rice and floor mill at Majali Village, the defendant approached the plaintiff and offered to make the plaintiff a partner on the plaintiff investing an amount of Rs. 6,000/-. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3368; 1998(6)KarLJ705
1. The plaintiff-Bank is the appellant. The suit for recovery of money due in respect of the facilities granted by the Bank in Original Suit No. 332 of 1980, was dismissed by the III Additional Munsiff, Belgaum and such dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Regular Appeal No. 81 of 1983 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Belgaum on 8-9-1986. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court.2. It is rather strange but not surprising that in an ex parte proceeding both the Courts below have concurrently thought they can dismiss the suit of the plaintiff-Bank. It is equally unfortunate that the Courts were not aware either the Banking Regulations Act or principles of Banking. Under the principles of Banking, the suit filed on an account has to be taken as the basis for any claim. In fact, Sections 3 and 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 is clear that the statements given by the Bank certified to be true under Section 2 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act shall be taken as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2520; 1999(4)KarLJ389
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Aggrieved by the selection made to the Postgraduate Medical Courses in the appellant-institution, the writ petitioners who were separately considered in the K.M.C. Category, prayed for issuance of directions to the appellant to admit them to the postgraduate medical courses on the basis of their ranking in the All India Medical Postgraduate Entrance Test (MEDPET), conducted by the appellant. They prayed, as an interim measure, that effect be not given to the selection to the postgraduate courses made on 4th August, 1996 in respect of 25% quota earmarked for Ex-KMC graduates. Writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 27-1-1997 directing the appellant to admit the writ petitioners in the coming academic session 1997-98 to the postgraduate courses from amongst 25% seats reserved in the NRI category subject to the condition that the fee structure and other conditions applicable to the writ petitioners shall be those prescribed for candi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(6)KarLJ703
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. Her suit for declaration and injunction in Original Suit No. 428 of 1974 was decreed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, on 25-10-1978. On appeal in Regular Appeal No. 836 of 1980, the learned 10th Additional Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on 27-11-1986. Hence, the second appeal.2. The plaintiff claimed that she purchased the going concern from one K. Venkataraman on 27-6-1970 and the said Venkataraman was a tenant under the defendants. The plaintiff further claimed that by virtue of her purchase, she became the owner and the rent paid by her has been accepted by the defendant. Consequently, she said that she cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. She also prayed for injunction restraining the second defendant from constructing a wall or any other structure on the suit schedule land. The defendants denied the tenancy of the appellant and contended that she never attor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)340; [1998]91CompCas850(Kar); ILR1997KAR3239
ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether it was permissible to launch a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against all the Directors of the Company notwithstanding the nomination made by the Company. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced for and against the contention of the petitioners and respondent it is necessary to succinctly refer to the facts of the case. 2. The respondent lodged a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., against these petitioners alleging that on 22-2-1996, A-2 executed an agreement on behalf of A-1. In connection with the transaction, the 1st petitioner A-1 on behalf of all the accused issued in favour of the complainant a cheque dated 31-10-1996 bearing No. 865657 drawn on Canara Bank, Industrial Finance Branch, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- lakhs in part payment of the advance received in that transaction. Subsequently, on 11-11-1996 after informing the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant278; ILR1997KAR2556; 1998(2)KarLJ109
ORDER1. Petitioner is the subscriber in regard to telephone bearing No. 576117 (Bangalore). The telephone was installed on 25-6-1973 and STD facility was barred on 23-7-1982. A bill dated 11-10-1989 (Annexure-L) relating to the period 25-7-1989 to 25-9-1989, was served on the petitioner for Rs. 16,648/-. Petitioner gave a complaint that the bill was excessive. Pending investigation into the said complaint, a provisional bill was issued for Rs. 2,204/- taking into account his earlier bills,keeping the balance of Rs. 14,444/- in abeyance.The Department thereafter sent a letter dated 17-1-1990 informing the petitioner that their investigation showed that there was no malfunctioning of the meter or fault in the system leading to erroneous metering; and that even though telephone was STD barred, repeated attempts made from the petitioner's telephone to get STD had succeeded on quite a few occasions and therefore, the bill was in order. Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed W.P. No. 15332 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!