Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ446
ORDER1. Relying upon the Government Order dated 20-8-1996, Annexure-G, and Government Order dated 21-11-1996, Annexure-G1, the appellants herein filed a writ petition praying for issuance of direction to the respondent-University for granting affiliation under the provisions of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned in this appeal with the following observations and directions: '(a) The first part of the prayer (seeking a direction to first respondent-University to issue necessary orders in term of the recommendations of the State Government) is disposed of recording the submission of Sri A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, learned Counsel for the first respondent-University, that if and when application is made by the petitioner for affiliation for 1996-97, it will be considered expeditiously and in terms of the Government order recommending affiliation (su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ381
1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, directing the appellants to refund an amount of Rs. 5,28,710/- to the respondents herein, this appeal has been filed on the grounds that the directions were unwarranted, contrary to law and the result of wrong conclusions of facts presumed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that without ascertaining the alleged actual loss suffered by the appellants, the learned Single Judge issued directions for the payment of aforesaid amount with the result that the appellants were subjected to the payment of the said amount twice, i.e., to the Institutions where the students who left the Institution of the respondents joined and secondly to the respondents herein despite the fact that they had not rendered anyeducation to the aforesaid students. It is further contended that there existed no rule providing that if the students decide to opt for another course or to other Institute they were liable to pay the fresh fee or that the fee e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR2320; [1998]110STC195(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These revision petition have been filed under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short) against the order dated October 31, 1996 passed by the Tribunal refusing to interfere with the order of the first appellate authority, dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.2. The appeals before the first appellate authority-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes were filed against the orders of an escaped assessment for the year 1989-90 made under section 12A of the Act as also imposing penalty under section 12-A(1-A) thereof and under section 12A read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act. These orders were passed on February 24, 1995 and the same had been served on the assessee on March 1, 1995. Though the limitation for preferring the appeal as provided under section 20 of the Act was 30 days but the same were filed on August 25, 1995. Thus, there was a delay of more than 140 days. For condonation of delay, the petitioner h...
Tag this Judgment!