Karnataka Court September 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Packwel Associates Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT601(Kar)
ORDER1. Aggrieved by three different orders of adjudication passed against it, the petitioner has filed Appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. These Appeals were accompanied by applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit in terms of proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. While the Appeals and the applications were pending consideration coercive proceedings for the recovery of the amount held recoverable from the petitioner appear to have been started against it. Aggrieved the petitioner filed W.P. Nos. 12728-30/1997 in this Court, inter alia seeking a mandamus directing the Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of its interim application for waiver of pre-deposit. These writ petitions were together with a bunch of similar other cases disposed of by this Court by a common order dated 30th of June, 1997, with a general direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the interim applications filed in the Appeals p...
Mysore Cements Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: [1998]110STC200(Kar)
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. These petitions call in question the constitutional validity of section 5(3-D) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Also under challenge is the validity of two proposition notices both dated February 19, 1991 issued against the petitioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment year 1986-87. 2. The petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cement. For the assessment year 1986-87, it filed a return under the Act, on April 30, 1987. In terms of section 12(5) of the State Act, no assessment is permissible after a period of three years from the date on which a return under sub-section (1) of section 12 is submitted by the dealer. In the ordinary course therefore the period of limitation for completing the assessment would expire on April 20, 1990. Much before which date, the assessing authority issued to the petitioner a proposition notice dated January 19, 1990. The pe...
E.C. Mascarenhas Vs. Stella Dumont
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1997
Reported in: ILR1998KAR664; 1998(4)KarLJ728
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of eviction dated 6-3-1990 passed in HRC No. 10471 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore, allowing the petition in part and granting eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the Rent Control Act ('Act' for short).2. The respondent herein is admittedly the owner of the petition premises which is a residential premises. The same was gifted to her by her mother which in fact, is not in dispute. The premises is a part of a residential building which is the first floor. The ground floor of the said building was gifted to the respondent's sister by her mother. The respondent is a lady who acquired the citizenship of Singapore along with her husband who was employed there. It is her case that her husband retired from the service in the year 1984. Therefore, they came back to India. They have got a son who is mentally retarded. They stayed for some time in Madras for medical treatment of their son. Since they...
Shivamurthayya Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR3233; 1998(1)KarLJ264
ORDER1. This writ petition is, directed against the order dated 23/25-10-1991 passed by the respondent 1, Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur Sub-Division, Bijapur in Case No. LRM: CR:27:91-92, copy as at Annexure-C to the writ petition. In passing the said order, the Assistant Commissioner while setting aside the ME. No. 192, held that the land had vested under Section 45(3) of the Land Reforms Act, in pursuance whereof, the auction was also directed to be taken under Section 77 of the Land Reforms Act.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.S. Patil. The respondent 1, State, respondent 2, Assistant Commissioner and the respondent 3, Tahsildar, Bijapur are served with notices and they remained absent. Therefore, the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri S.S. Guttal is directed to take notice for the said respondents. I have also heard him.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner while taking me through the facts of the case submitted that an extent of 37 guntas of l...
Mahadevappa Alias Mudakappa Vs. Basangouda Bhimanagouda Patil and Othe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)325; 1998(1)KarLJ665
ORDER1. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 805 of 1995 and 77 of 1996 are filed by the accused and are directed against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 15-11-1995, recalling the order of discharge passed by the Court dated 1-8-1995, thereby restoring the complaint on its file.2. Criminal Revision Petition No. 665 of 1995 is filed by the complainant against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 1-8-1995, discharging the accused on the ground of not adducing the evidence before charge. Since the parties in all these revisions are the same and common questions of law and facts arise in these matters, they are by consent of the learned Counsels, clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 665 of 1995 (who will be hereinafter called as the complainant) filed a complaint under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code before the J.M.F.C., Haven in Dharwad District, alleging offences punishable under Sections 449, 504,...
National Insurance Company, Bangalore Vs. Thimmareddy and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1997
Reported in: I(1998)ACC414; 1999ACJ399; 1998(4)KarLJ66
1. The solitary point that is required to be considered by the Court in this case revolves around the issue as to whether the Insurance Company in the case of goods vehicle namely a truck can be held liable for injuries that have been sustained by a person who claims to be thesecond driver. The incident in question took place on 19-5-1990 and the accepted position is that the respondent who is the claimant before the Tribunal claims to be the employee of the owner in the capacity of driver. According to his evidence, at the time when the accident took place another driver was operating the vehicle and the claimant was sleeping in the cabin. He was thrown out of the cabin and sustained injuries of a somewhat serious nature. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation awarded compensation aggregating to Rs. 43,382/-and the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal assailing the correctness of that Order. There is some delay in the presentation of the appeal but in view...
M/S. Senapathy Whitelay Limited, Ramanagaram Vs. Puttaswamy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1997
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ216
ORDER1. In an application filed under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act') by the respondent-workman the appellant herein raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the application on the ground that, as the earlier application of the workman seeking reference had been rejected by the Government, he was not entitled to move the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute raised by him. The preliminary issue was decided by the Labour Court, vide the order dated 22-10-1994, holding that the workman was entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Act, provided the application is filed within the statutory period specified under the aforesaid section. The writ petition filed against the order of the Labour Court was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide the orders impugned in this appeal.2. Section 10(4-A) was incorporated, vide Karnataka Act No. 5 of 1988, and was enforced with eff...
The Management of the Mysore Coffee Processing Co-operative Society Li ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: ILR1998KAR18; 1998(1)KarLJ1
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The point of law required to be settled in these appeals is:'Whether in a case where order of dismissal of a workman is proved to have been passed without holding any inquiry and consequently is justified by the management, before the Labour Court, the workman would be entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of the award or the order of dismissal would become effective from the date it is passed notwithstanding the non-holding of the domestic inquiry?'2. In support of the rival contentions the learned Counsel for the parties have relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in:(1) P.H. Kalyani v M/s. Air France, Calcutta, (2) The Oriental Textile Finishing Mills Amritsar v The Labour Court, Jullundur and Others, (3) The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and RubberCompany of India (Pvt.) Limited v The Management and Others , (4) D.C. Roy v The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, M.P. and Others, (5) Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited v Gujarat Steel Tub...
B.V. Veerabadrappa Vs. State by Holenarasipur Police, Hassan District
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)KarLJ118
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal, but modifying the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. The petitioner is the first accused before the Trial Court. He along with others were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 509 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The accused were tried for the said offences as they pleaded not guilty to the above charges. In proof of the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of 11 witnesses and 10 documents. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the evidence on record held the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324, Indian Penal Code only and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-with default clause. He acquitted the other accused. There is no appeal against the order of acquittal. The first accused filed a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, ...
B.V. Veerabadrappa Vs. the State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)430; 1998CriLJ1171
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal, but modifying the sentence of imprisonment to one of fine. The petitioner is first accused before the trial Court. He along with others were charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 509 r/w 149, IPC. The accused were tried for the said offences as they pleaded not guilty to the above charges. In proof of the same, the prosecution relied on the evidence of 11 witnesses and 10 documents. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the evidence on record held the first accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324, IPC only and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default clause. He has acquitted the other accused. There is no appeal against the order of acquittal. The first accused filed a criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan. He has passed the impugned order.2. The order is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »