Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant99; ILR1997KAR3124; 1998(1)KarLJ417
G.C. Bharuka, J.1.The question of law which has been referred for the decision of this Full Bench is as to whether in a common petition/appeal filed by several petitioners/appellants involving common questions of law and facts, the Court fee payable thereon will be by treating the said writ petitions/appeals as one or distinct. It appears that the present appellants had taken a plea before the Division Bench of this Court that in case any petition/appeal filed is pertaining to a common grievance, then the joint petitioners/appellants are required to file only one set of Court fee. For that purpose, they had placed reliance on an order dated 22-7-1986, passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 1877 to 1887 of 1996. The said order is to the following effect:--'These are appeals filed by persons who have filed individual and separate writ petitions. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to file separate appeals, since the appellants have got a common grievance against the order made by the learned Single Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1178
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court in KEC International Limited v. State of Karnataka [1997] 105 STC 192 examined the constitutional validity of section 19A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, which made a provision for deduction at source from amounts payable to a dealer in respect of works contracts of the nature specified in the Sixth Schedule to the Act. The challenge was mainly based on the plea that section 19A, authorised deduction of tax on the total amount of works contract without making any provision for deduction of the value of certain components of such contracts which were not otherwise exigible to tax. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan : (1993)1SCC364 , this Court held that the entire amount payable under a works contract was not exigible to Central or State sales tax and that the taxable amount has to be calculated out of the total amount on the principles stated by their Lordships i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1020
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. In the field of taxation, the Legislature enjoys an extremely wide discretion as regards classification of items and the choice of persons, method and rates for the levy of taxes that it may decide to impose. While fiscal statutes are not totally immune from challenge on the touchstone of article 14 of the Constitution, so long as the Legislature refrains from a clear and hostile discrimination, the courts would not substitute their own standards and classifications for those made by the Legislature. It is also equally well-settled that the State does not have to tax everything in order to tax something and that its choice of picking up districts, batches, persons, methods and even rates for taxation if made reasonably ought to be respected by the courts. See (1) East India Tobacco Company. v. State of Andhra Pradesh : [1963]1SCR404 , (2) P. M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka [1988] Supp 3 SCR 155, (3) Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1300; 1997(4)KarLJ670
1. The present complaint filed under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India involves a simple but important question of law as regards the jurisdiction of the High Courts in India to initiate proceedings for alleged contempt of the Supreme Court.2. The complaint is directed against the Addl. City Civil Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore. The allegation levelled against him is that, in his order dated 6th March, 1997 passed in O.S. 3272/96 on an I.A. filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he had made certain observations about the order dated 6-2-1996 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1489/98, which according to the complainant is unwarranted and lowers the prestige of the Apex Court.3. At the instance of the complainants, notices were issued to the respondent as well as the State of Karnataka who are respectively represented by Sri H. S. Jois, learned Senior Advocate and Sri B. R. Nanjundaiah, learned State Public Prosecutor who have taken obj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(2)KarLJ86
ORDER1. These batches of revisions under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. are directed against the order of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, allowing the appeals in part by confirming the order of conviction rendered by the Trial Magistrate but modifying the sentence. 2. The petitioners are the Managing Directors of a Beedi Factory at Puttur. It is the case of the prosecution that one P.S. Abbas was the Proprietor of M/s. General Beedi Works, Puttur and he died on 2-4-1986. He committed default in paying the contribution to the Provident Fund under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short). The petitioners herein and two others declared themselves as partners of the firm M/s. General Beedi Works after the death of P.S. Abbas. They have also committed default in paying the contributions in spite of notice and therefore, they are prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under Section 14(1-A) and 14A of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ983Kant
ORDER1. These batches of revisions under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. are directed against the order of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, allowing the appeals in part by confirming the order of conviction rendered by the Trial Magistrate by modifying the sentence. 2. The petitioners are the Managing Directors of a Beedi Factory at Puttur. It is the case of the prosecution that one P. S. Abbas was the Proprietor of M/s. General Beedi Works, Puttur and he died on April 2, 1986. He committed default in paying the contribution to the Provident Fund under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 (the Act for short). The petitioner herein and two others declared themselves as partners of the firm M/s. General Beedi Works after the death of P. S. Abbas. They have also committed default in paying the contributions in spite of notice and therefore, they are prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under Section 14(1-A) and 14A of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)ALT(Cri)183; 1998CriLJ1005; ILR1998KAR910
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code questioning the order passed by the JMFC., Kundapura, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 3025/1996. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP for the respondent. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that if the entire case of the petitioner is taken into consideration no offence is made out as against these petitioners who are qualified Doctors and no negligence can be attributed to these petitioners. It is also submitted that act of these petitioners are well protected under law. Therefore the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is abuse of the process of the Court and calls for interference. 3. However, the learned State Public Prosecutor contended that all these grounds can be urged by the petitioners before the learned Magistrate and it is too early for this Court to interfere with the order p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998ACJ1219
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the learned advocates on both sides. Even though the appellant had applied for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased owner, I have dispensed with that requirement because the matter was heard for sometime and it is necessary for me to record the reasons for it. The learned Counsel, who represents the insurance company, pointed out to the Court that when the matter was conducted before the Tribunal the claimants had given the name of Md. Thahar as the owner of the vehicle and he states that on checking the records, the insurance company could not trace any such person as an insured client of the company. The insurance company had taken up the contention that it is not liable for this reason. The Tribunal proceeded with the matter and still held the insurance company liable which is why M.F.A. No. 65 of 1988 was preferred by the insurance company, the principal ground being that the company was wrongly held liable on the ground that the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR804; 1998(1)KarLJ612
ORDER1. Assistant teachers who impart knowledge to the students in schools maintained and established by Karnataka University, Dharwad, are before this Court in a joint petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, questioning the legality or otherwise of the amendment made, Amending Statute No. 7 in Chapter VI of the University Statutes and notified by theChancellor of the University in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (the 'Act' for short) as unconstitutional and void. Further, they are questioning the action of the University, retiring them on attaining the age of 58 years. 2. Since common facts are there and the question of law being the same in all these petitions, they are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order. 3. The representative matrix of facts which are admittedly similar, if not identical may be noticed briefly in present case. The petitioner began her career as Assistant Teacher in University Public...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR141; 1997(4)KarLJ754
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Dharmadarshis of Sri Hanumantha Devaru temple situated at Jalahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, to quash the order dt. 26.7.82 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore, (North) Taluk granting occupancy right in part in respect of three different extents of lands, 24 guntas to respondent No. 1, 18 guntas to respondent No. 2 and 24 guntas to respondent No. 3 (in all 1 acre 26 guntas) out of Sy.No. 73, Copy at Annexure 'A' to Writ Petition and further to quash the order dated 22.8.89 passed by the respondent No. 5 - District Land Reforms Appellants Authority, Bangalore Dist., whereby the said Appellate Authority while allowing the deemed appeal of the respondents No. 1 to 3 granted occupancy right to them in respect of the entire extents as claimed by respondents No. 1 to 3 by setting aside the order dt. 17.7.86 of the Land Tribunal, copy as at Annexure 'B' to Writ Petition.2. I heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Gi...
Tag this Judgment!