Karnataka Court November 1999 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.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Dalitha and Hindulida Alpa Sankhyatara Gramabhivrudd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR250
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. Since the facts and issues raised are overlapping and inextricably interwoven, therefore we have found advisable to dispose of both the I.A. filed in the contempt proceedings as well as the writ petitions by a common judgment.2. The petitioner claims to be a registered society consisting of the purported allottees under 'Ashraya Scheme' of house sites in Survey No. 14 of Ganakal Village of Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The petitioner-society had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 253430 of 1996 in the public interest domain for direction to the respondents-State of Karnataka and its police wing to register criminal case against Sri Nagaraj @ Shivpuri Swamy (respondent 5) as per their complaint dated 26-4-1996 (Annexure-J) for encroaching public lands and also to protect the members of the society against dispossession of sites claimed to have been validly allotted to them. In the above writ petition, the State Government took the stand that since it had com...
B. Subramanyam Vs. Kushal Chand
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR571; 2000(1)KarLJ609
ORDER1. I have heard the plaintiff's learned Advocate on merits. The grievance projected in this Civil Revision Petition is that an amendment to the written statement which was sought by the petitioner who is the original defendant before the Trial Court in a money recovery suit was disallowed by the Trial Court. The petitioner's learned Advocate points out to me that two additional points were sought to be canvassed, the first being that the plaintiff has not produced the Money Lenders Licence nor satisfied the Court that he was a Money Lender on the date of the loan and on the date when the loan was extended by him and on the date of filing of the suit. The second point taken up was that assuming that the plaintiff is a money lender, that he is required to comply with the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act and if the requisite returns have not been filed by him that under Section 24, he would be disqualified from claiming interest and costs. The submission is that the defend...
The Director/Controller of Examinations, National Council for Hotel Ma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant145; ILR2000KAR2530; 2000(2)KarLJ52
Acts/Rules/Orders:Constitution of India - Articles 12 and 226;Societies Registration Act, 1860;Union Territories of India (Punjab Amendment Act, 1957);Memorandum of Association, Examination Rules, Management and Academic RulesCases Referred:Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1975 SC 1329, (1975)1 SCC 485, 1975 Lab. I.C. 819 (SC);Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1988 SC 469;Real Food Products Limited and Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and Others, AIR 1995 SC 2234, (1995)3 SCC 295;Managing Director, Orissa I.I.D.C. v. Sarat Chandra Patnaik, (1996)4 SCC 590;Ashok Kumar Thakur v. University of Himachal Pradesh and Others, AIR 1973 SC 221, (1973)2 SCC 298JUDGEMENT1. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge permitting the respondent-students of diploma course in Hotel Management in the 2nd appellant-Institution, to appear at the supplementary examination in spite of their failure to ...
M/S. Yellamma Dasappa Hospital, Bangalore Vs. the Commissioner of Cust ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(120)ELT67(Kar); ILR2000KAR1092; 2000(3)KarLJ177
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25-6-1999 in W.P. No. 8244 of 1999.2. Facts: The appellant is running a hospital and is catering to the medical requirements of patients belonging to all sections of society. The appellant imported various medical equipments during the years 1988 to 1996 by availing the exemption from payment of duty in terms of the notification dated 1-3-1988 bearing No. 64 of 1988. The Director General of Health Services issued a certificate certifying that the items mentioned are exempt from payment of customs duty in terms of the Ministry of Finance Notification dated 1-3-1988. The appellant, after import, is using the equipments in terms of the notification.3. Respondent 2-the Appraiser of Customs visited the hospital on 4-3-1999 and seized the equipments being used by the appellant. The only reason given in the mahazar drawn on the date of seizure is that the appellant fai...
D. Jayamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ642
ORDER1. The 5th respondent was granted authorisation to run a fair price depot by the order at Annexure-A, dated 31-7-1998. Aggrieved by the same, the appeal filed by the petitioner had been rejected under Annexure-B, dated 18-8-1998. The petitioner is seeking to quash both the orders in this writ petition. The main contention is that without considering the application of the petitioner the impugned orders are passed.2. In the counter filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 inter alia it is stated that the petitioner did not apply in the prescribed form within the prescribed time. Since the application filed by the petitioner was not inaccordance with Clause 4(2) of the Public Distribution System Control Order, 1992, the same was not considered.3. Mr. B.T. Parthasarathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having learnt that her first application was not in order, she filed another application on 13-7-1998, thereby the defect in the first application had been ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surinder Kumar Khanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: [2001]250ITR673(KAR); [2001]250ITR673(Karn); [2001]119TAXMAN574(Kar)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated May 29, 1997, for the assessment year 1992-93 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of export of blocks of granite, cut and polished to certain extent only, for the assessment year 1992-93 ?'2. The facts of the ease are that the assessee is in the business of export of granite blocks. It claimed deductions under Section 80HHC on the export income. The,same was however refused by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee exports merely blocks of granite without getting them cut and polished as is required under the provisions of the Twelfth Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. During the course of the further appeal filed by t...
Subhash Marketing Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1999
Reported in: [2000]118STC136(Kar)
1. Petitioner has been subjected to tax at 12 per cent under entry 4, Part E to the Second Schedule which pertains to electronic goods and parts and accessories thereof other than those falling under any other entry of this Schedule. Entry 10B of Part T is in respect of toys of all kinds including electronic and electrically operated toys which are liable to tax at 8 per cent. A request was made by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to clarify the rate of tax. The Commissioner vide letter dated March 25, 1994 (annexure B) clarified that the rate of tax on Samurai TV games is 8 per cent at first sale point. The dispute in the present matter is for assessment year 1995-1996. According to the assessing authority TV game is an electronic item falling under entry 4 of Part E to Second Schedule and liable to tax at 12 per cent. The assessee submitted monthly return in form 3 and paid the tax at 6 per cent. The annual return was also submitted wherein the tax at TV games w...
Geetha Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR909; 2000(2)KarLJ383
ORDER1. The petitioner obtained a CL-9 licence dated 30-6-1999 for the excise year 1999-2000 (valid till 30-6-2000) for running a Bar and Restaurant at premises No. 3-2-79 and 3-2-42/1, near Gandhi Circle, Shorapur.2. The second respondent issued a Circular dated 23-8-1999 informing all the Deputy Commissioners of Excise that this Court in the case of Mahabala Uggappa Adappa v Excise Commissioner and Others, had directed the Excise Commissioner to take immediate steps to cancel the excise licences where the businesses were not carried by the licensees themselves but by some other person on the basis of a 'lease agreement or power of attorney or the like', and therefore the Deputy Commissioners of Excise should initiate action in respect of all retail licensees as per the said order of this Court and report compliance within 30-9-1999.3. In pursuance of it, the third respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 28-9-1999 to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aswati Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR283(KAR); [2000]243ITR283(Karn)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated August 1, 1994, in respect of the assessment year 1985-86.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A on the plant and machineries leased by it to other concerns, which although being used by such other concerns in the manufacture or production of articles or things, were, however, not utilised by the assessee for the purpose of carrying on any manufacturing or production operations on its own ?'The assessee is a company engaged in leasing its plant and machinery to other parties, who were carrying on manufacturing activities. For the assessment year 1985-86, the assessee claimed investment allowance ofRs. 1,46,300. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer negatived the claim on the ground that the assessee itself was not carrying on an...
B.L. Diwakar Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1999
Reported in: 2001CriLJ305; ILR1999KAR4693; 2000(2)KarLJ283
ORDER1. The petitioner above named being aggrieved by the proceedings arising out of C.C. No. 613 of 1999 and the investigation made by the second respondent including FIR and the charge-sheet filed for the alleged offences under Sections 24(g), (h) and 73(d) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 as amended read with Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, (2 read with Section 3-A) of which the cognizance is taken, has preferred this petition to quash the proceedings and also the petitioner has made alternative prayer to pass any appropriate order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.2. It is stated that the land bearing Sy. No. 3 of Kenjigegudda Coffee Estate Village, Sy. Nos. 177 and 180 of Kundur Village formed a part of a Coffee Plantation owned by partnership firm called 'KUNDUR COFFEE PLANTATION'. The petitioner has stated that he is neither a partner nor the owner of the said coffee plantation. It is stated that the certificate issued by the Tahsildar in respect of Sy. No. 3 of Kenjigegudda Cof...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »