Karnataka Court May 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.
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC339(Kar)
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. A common question of law arises for consideration in these writ petitions. It is with respect to the scope of application of Section 12(6)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The averments in all the cases are that the assessment is being completed, admittedly beyond the period contemplated under Section 12(5) of the Act. The said section reads thus :'(5) No assessment under this section for any year shall be made after a period of three years from the date on which the return under Sub-section (1) for that year is submitted by a dealer :Provided that assessment proceedings relating to any year ending before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985 in respect of which a return under Sub-section (1) has been submitted, before such commencement shall be completed within a period of four years from such commencement :Provided further that nothing in this sub-section limiting the time w...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Ta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3124
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kuma, J.1. A common question of law arises for consideration in these writ petitions. It is with respect to the scope of application of Section 12(6)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The averments in all the cases are that the assessment is being completed, admittedly beyond the period contemplated under Section 12(5) of the Act. The said section reads thus:'(5) No assessment under this Section for any year shall be made after a period of three years from the date on which the return under Sub-section (1) for that year is submitted by a dealer: Provided that assessment proceedings relating to any year ending before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985 in respect of which a return under Sub-section (1) has been submitted, before such commencement shall be completed within a period of four years from such commencement: Provided further that nothing in this sub-section limiting the time withi...
Sha Hirachand Dungarchand and Co. Vs. the Asst. Commn. of Commr. Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2960
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. This Writ Petition raises an interesting question. That is, whether the respondent exercising the power of composition conferred under the taxing law, can demand, collect and retain, sum in excess of the composition fee provided for composition of offences provided for under the taxing statute. The facts of the case, material for the adjudication of the dispute, is as hereunder,2. The petitioner a trader in sugar assessed to Sales Tax by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The 1st respondent herein on 13.7.94, searched the premises of the petitioner and alleging that he has purchased sugar from sugar factory atIchalkaranji during the year 1992-93 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 91,053/- as entry tax. The petitioner alleges that there is no assessment made for the demand made as above. Besides, as per Annexure-A, the petitioner alleges that he was called upon to pay Rs. 25,000/- as composition fee under Section 23 of the Act. He paid t...
T. Veerabhadrappa Vs. the Ministry of Mines and Steel and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2965
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. Two hundred and Thirty Acres of Forest Land situated in Sandur Taluk of Bellary District, was granted on a long lease to the petitioner for a period of 30 years for mining iron ore. On the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner appears to have made an application for renewal which request was processed by the State Government at the appropriate level culminating in a recommendation to the Central Government for grant of requisite approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Central Government made a reference to the Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the said Act and on receipt of its recommendations, declined to grant the approval prayed for. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the view taken by the Central Government and for a mandamus directing acceptance of the proposal submitted by the State Government.2. In the objections filed on behalf of the Union of India, the refusal ...
Devdas Rao Vs. Syndicate Bank, Manipal, Dakshina Kannada District and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2793; 1998(4)KarLJ385
ORDER1. Petitioner was a Deputy Divisional Manager in Syndicate Bank. He is before this Court primarily for a direction to the respondent-Bank to pay him full salary at the revised rates inclusive of all allowances from 6-3-1987 till the end of February 1989 and to quash letter bearing No. PD : PAS BNG : 196, dated 15-2-1989.2. Briefly the background facts are, while working as Deputy Divisional Manager, petitioner by his letter dated 6-12-1986 submitted an application to the General Manager of the Bank, seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 6-3-1987 as required under Clause 20(2) of Syndicate Bank (Officers) Service Regulations ('Regulations' for short). Bank in turn by its letter dated 7-1-1987 was pleased to inform the petitioner that his letter of resignation has been accepted with effect from 6-3-1987. Before the resignation could come into effect, Bank by its registered letter dated 4-3-1987 has informed the petitioner that the acceptance of petitioner's resignation by th...
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Educational Trust (Registered), Bhadravathi, Shimoga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ537
ORDER1. The petitioner-Trust appears to have made an application to the respondent-University, seeking its permission to start a new College offering a B.Ed. course. The request was processed and a Committee appointed by the University to inspect the proposed Institution. A recommendation was in due course submitted to the State Government by the University suggesting that the Institution, could be granted affiliation subject to certain terms and conditions. Upon consideration the Government have by its order dated 7th of October, 1997, declined to grant the requisite affiliation for as many as nine distinct reasons set out in the said order. These reasons inter alia include the alleged nonavailability of a proper building with the petitioner, the absence of recognition of the proposed institution by the National Council for Teachers Education and the alleged non-availability of the infrastructure necessary for running such an Institution. Aggrieved the petitioner has assailed in this ...
Muneer Ahmed Vs. V.K. Babu and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ485
ORDER1. The petitioner who is a tenant filed an application under Section 19 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) in HRC No. 243 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, seeking permission to deposit the rents into the Court. He alleged that the landlord had refused to receive the rents and issue receipts; and that he had sent the accrued rent by banker's cheque through registered post and the landlord refused to receive it. The Court below has rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the requirements of Section 19 as he had not tendered the rent by postal money order. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition.2. Petitioner contends that when the landlord refuses a valid legal tender of the rent, the Court ought to have permitted him to deposit the rent under Section 19. He relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Damadilal and Others v Parashram and Others and Dr. Brahman...
Vishnu Hanamanthappa Bagalkoti Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2993; 1998(5)KarLJ188
1. This petition is preferred against the orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 22-01-1991 in confirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority dated 30-3-1986. By the said order, the disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner to the lower stage in the time scale for a period of two years from the date of the order. To appreciate the case of the petitioner, a few facts requires to be stated.2. Petitioner was working as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the Karnataka Electricity Board ('Board' for short). While working in the aforesaid post, petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 21-01-1985, containing allegations of misconduct said to have been committed by him as A.A.O. The Deputy Controller of Accounts (Enquiries) was appointed as a specially empowered authority as an Enquiry Officer to frame definite charges and to conduct enquiry against the petitioner as per rules by the disciplinary authority. The said Enquiry Of...
K. Moodalappa Vs. the Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR33]; ILR1998KAR3592; 1998(6)KarLJ443
ORDER1. In this petition the petitioner has sought for (1) quashing of the order at Annexure-F dated 8/10-5-1991, (2) for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondent to pay the entire arrears of salary and allowances from 14-8-1980 upto his reinstatement with all consequential benefits without any deduction in any manner and (3) to direct the respondent to consider his case for promotion retrospectively from date his juniors were promoted to higher posts. 2. Petitioner was an employee of the respondent. His services came to be terminated by an order dated 14-8-1980 after holding a departmental enquiry. It is to be observed at this stage itself that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent officer and even the order of dismissal was passed by an incompetent officer. The said order of dismissal was the subject-matter in O.S. No. 8719 of 1980 in the Civil Court, Bangalore. After contest, the suit came to be decreed declaring that the order of dismissal was null in the eye of law....
Muneer Ahamed Vs. V.K. Babu and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2416
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.The petitioner who is a tenant filed an application under Section 19 of the Karnataka rent control Act, 1961 ('act' for short) in HRC No. 243/1987 on the file of the additional judge, court of small causes, Bangalore seeking permission to deposit the rents into the court. He alleged that the landlord had refused to received the rents and issue receipts; and that he had sent the accrued rent by Banker's cheque through registered post and the landlord refused to receive it. The court below has rejected the petition on the ground that petitioner has not complied with the requirements of Section 19 as he had not tendered the rent by postal money order. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition.2. Petitioner contends that when the landlord refuses a valid legal tender of the rent, the court ought to have permitted him to deposit the rent under Section 19. He relied on the decisions of the supreme court in DAMADILAL v. PARASHRAM : AIR1976SC2229 , BRAHMANAN...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »