Karnataka Court March 1998 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.
R. Shankaregouda Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3141; 1998(3)KarLJ494
ORDER1. Can the Licensing Authority exercising powers under the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989, refuse a licence on the ground that the grant would offend the provision of any other statute in force? What is 'Entertainment' within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967? Should the term be interpreted ejusdem generis having regard to the Company it keeps in the said provision, or can the wide interpretation adopted by the Licensing Authority be accepted? These are some of the questions that fall for consideration in this bunch of petitions which assail the validity of orders passed by the Licensing Authority refusing to the petitioners licences to provide live music in their Bar and Restaurants, inter alia on the ground that live music is 'Entertainment' within the meaning of that expression in Rule 11 of the General Conditions Rules hence impermissible in a place where liquor is ser...
Peenya Industries Association, Bangalore and Others Vs. Karnataka Elec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ141
ORDER1. Constitutional validity of Regulation 31.04 of Karnataka Electricity Board (Supply) Regulations, 1988 has been called in question in these petitions- Also under challenge is the validity of Circular dated 22nd of April 1997 issued by the respondent K.E.B., whereunder it has revised the Meter Security Deposit for L.T. Electronic Trivector Meters wherever installed to Rs. 13,710/- less the amount already deposited.2. The petitioners are small scale industrial Units and L.T. Consumers of electrical energy. They are also members of the Peenya Industries Association-petitioner in W.P. No. 3701 of 1998. They are aggrieved in these petitions of a Circular dated 22nd of April, 1997, whereunder the respondent has revised the Meter Security Deposit earlier prescribed for H.T. & L.T. Installations. According to the decision now taken in the case of L.T. Electronic Trivector Meters, the consumers are required to deposit Rs. 13,710/- less the amount already deposited towards the Meter Secur...
Mahadevaiah and Others Vs. the Tahsildar, Gundlupet Taluk, Mysore Dist ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2255; 1998(4)KarLJ394
ORDER1. They first occupied Government land unauthorisedly, then got it regularised for cultivation and are now claiming the right to fell and remove the trees growing on the same. Applications seeking sale of the trees in their favour having been turned down the petitioners have filed these writ petitions, assailing the rejection orders.2. The petitioners unauthorisedly occupied two acres each of Government land situate in Sy. Nos. 85 and 86 of village Channamallipura in Gundlupet taluk of Mysore District. The unauthorised occupation was regularised for cultivation by the competent authority in terms of Section 94-A of the Land Revenue Act by order dated 24th September, 1992. The trees growing on the land in question were however reserved in favour of the Government and therefore continued to remain Govern-ment property. A joint application was thereafter made on 20th of September, 1995, by the petitioners before the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gundlupet, for permission to cut and ...
Aeg Telefunken Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [1998]233ITR129(KAR); [1998]233ITR129(Karn)
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This is an application by the assessee seeking reference of the following questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts the Tribunal was right in holding that the fee of Rs. 2,95,362 received from Indian company was liable to be assessed to Indian Income-tax Act by virtue of the provision of Section 2(1)(viii) (sic) of the Act ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that applicant was not entitled to the exemption under Article (III)(1) of the DTA agreement ?' The facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident company having its place of business at Frankfurt in West Germany. The assessment year is 1982-83. During the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee had received Rs. 2,85,362 from the Indian companies towards the services rendered by its technical personnel. The case of the assessee is that a double taxation agreement wasentered into between India and West Germany and this amount is exempted from taxation in India and,...
Vani Organics Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ce ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC368(Kar)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present appeal filed under Section 16 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (in short, 'the Entry Tax Act') is directed against the order dated April 26, 1997 (annexure A) passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Davanageri. By the said order, which has been passed by invoking suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(2) of the said Act, the claim of the appellant for exemption from entry tax has been rejected.2. Since during the course of arguments, a question of law, having far reaching consequences based on interpretation of the Notification No. FD II GET 93(III), dated March 31, 1993 (annexure D) issued under Section 11A of the Entry Tax Act regarding grant of exemption from entry tax in respect of sale of finished products of pre-existing industrial units which had made investment on expansion, cropped up, therefore, in order to ensure uniformity in application of the provision of the said notification, we called upon the...
The Mysore Kirloskar Limited, Yantrapura, Harihar, Chitradurga Distric ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ115
Ashok Bhan, J.1. I.A. II is allowed.Applicants are impleaded as respondents.We have examined the merits of the dispute as well on several judgments of the Supreme Court, which in our opinion are applicable to the facts of the present case.No ground for interference is made out.2. Dismissed....
Binny Limited, Bangalore Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2709; 1998(4)KarLJ544; (1999)ILLJ73Kant
Ashok Bhan, J.1.The only question that requires to be considered in this appeal is whether an exempted establishment under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is bound to pay interest at the statutory rate at par with the scheme framed as per the provisions of the Act.2. The brief facts are:The appellant is a limited company having two textile mills, one in Madras and the other in Bangalore. The Bangalore Mill is a separate Company known as Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company Limited. This company and certain other companies were amalgamated in the year 1969 and after such amalgamation the new company is known as Binny Limited. Prior to its amalgamation the Bangalore Mill had its own provident fund which was managed by separate Trustees and was exempted under Section 17 from the provisions of the Act. The exemption was granted by the Government of India on 31st July, 1953 with effect fro...
K.S. Pampanna Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4004; 1998(4)KarLJ761
ORDER1. The petitioner was the Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat. Some of the members of the Taluk Panchayat issued a notice expressing no confidence against the petitioner. Thereafter some of the members who signed the notice expressed that they are withdrawing the said notice. In view of that the Chief Executive Officer decided not to call for the meeting to consider the notice given by the members expressing no confidence as against the petitioner. Thereafter the Chief Executive Officer called for the meeting for the second time fixing the date of meeting as 4-3-1998 to consider the notice expressing no confidence against the petitioner. Accordingly the meeting was held on 4-3-1998 and motion of no confidence was placed before the committee for consideration. In the said meeting the motion was passed by two-thirds majority expressing no confidence against the petitioner. This resolution has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that on 12-12-1997 the Executive Officer decid...
Neelaiah G.M. Vs. Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ146Kant
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. Respondent No. 1 has preferred a writ petition against the order of the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore under which the Labour Court has passed an award setting aside the order of termination passed against the appellant and ordering reinstatement with continuity of service with other consequential benefits apart from granting backwages at 40% from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. In that writ petition R-1 worker has filed I.A.I under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act ('I.D. Act' for short). In that application the workman has specifically pleaded that he has not been gainfully employed and has no source of income to sustain himself. The learned single Judge has heard I.A.I. for direction and ordered I.A.I in favour of Rule 1. However, while ordering the application under Section 17B of the I.D. Act, the learned single Judge had made it a conditional order asking the respondent-worker to file an undertaking to this Court that i...
Shirajasab Husensab Exambi Vs. Ashok Panditappa Kaddimani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2655; 1999(1)KarLJ601
Acts/Rules/Orders:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7, Rule 11 - Order 8, Rule 10 - Order 9, Rules 6(1) and 7 - Order 15, Rule 1 - Order 17, Rule 3JUDGEMENT 1. The unfortunate plaintiff whose suit was dismissed, despite the fact that the defendant neither appeared nor filed the written statement before the lower Court as well as the Appellate Court, is the appellant before this Court.2. It is indeed a pity that the subordinate Courts have forgotten the basic of the Code of Civil Procedure and embarked upon an enquiry even in the absence of the defendant coming and appearing before it. The only provision under which a plaint can be rejected is Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. In the case of rejection of the plaint, where the plaint does not disclose the cause of action; where the relief claimed is undervalued or the suit appears from the statement of the parties to be barred under any law. One can understand the plaint can be rejected on those grounds initially. Under Order 9, R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »