Karnataka Court February 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.
Bharat Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR89(KAR); [1999]238ITR89(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The order of the first respondent dated September 14, 1992, passed under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment years 1984-85 to 1986-87 have been assailed in these petitions. The petitioners submitted for waiver of interest were rejected by an order passed under rules 40 and 117A. The dispute is in respect of the premium received on sale of import entitlement which by retrospective amendment by the Finance Act, 1990, was made liable to tax. There was another addition on account of retrospective amendment of Section 43B. The interest on addition because of retrospective amendment of Section 43B was directed to be deleted by the Commissioner of Income-tax for the purpose of calculating the interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the Act. It was found that there were different courts' decisions on the question of taxability of premium on sale of import entitlement, the assessee took a calculated risk to claim this as not taxable. Theref...
thensingh Vs. the Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR446]; ILR1999KAR2150; 1999(3)KarLJ355; (2000)ILLJ100Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner is the proprietor of a hotel running under the name and style of M/s. The Rice Bowl. He has filed these writ petitions seeking to quash the order at Annexure-E, dated 21-11-1998 passed by the first respondent Labour Officer and Minimum Wages Authority in Case No. L.O.B-3/M.W.A/CR 10/98 in exercise of the power under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Respondents 2 to 15 are the employees of the petitioner. They have filed a petition represented by the President, Bangalore District Hotel Labourers' Association complaining to the first respondent that the petitioner is not implementing the minimum wages as per the Government Order No. SWL 25 LMW 91, dated 19-2-1994. On the said petition the first respondent registered a case and notice was served on the petitioner. The petitioner wrote a letter seeking time. Thereafter, neither the petitioner nor his Counsel appeared before the first respondent to oppose the claim...
Shankarapra Shrishailappa Boadannawar (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Shivappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1354; 1999(3)KarLJ466
ORDER1. This is the landlord's revision being aggrieved of the order of dismissal of M.A. No. 2 of 1988 on the file of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Belgaum allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, Bailhongal, permitting the tenant to carry out the amendment.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:One Shivappa Rudrappa Sutagatti, filed Form 7 on 28-12-1970 in respect of Sy.No. 4/1A measuring 1 acre 9 guntas and Sy. No. 4/3A measuring 2 acres 19 guntas situated at Sampagaon Village claiming occupancy right under Shankarappa Shrishailappa Boadannawar. The Land Tribunal, Bailhongal granted occupancy right only in respect of Sy. No. 4/3A measuring 2 acres 19 guntas by its order dated 15-10-1981 and rejected the claim in respect of Sy. No. 4/1A. Being aggrieved of the order of the Land Tribunal, Bailhongal rejecting the claim insofar as it relates to Sy. No. 4/1A, the tenant preferred Writ Petition No. 4209 of 1982, whereas the landlord also filed W...
M/S. Kemtrode Private Limited, Bangalore and Another Vs. the Joint Dir ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 1999LC73(Karnataka); 1999(108)ELT616(Kar); 1999(3)KarLJ437
ORDER1. Validity of clarification and the show-cause notice issued by the Development Commissioner of Small Scale Industries, Ministry of Industry, Government of India have been assailed. It was observed in the clarification as under:'If the fixed investment on plant and machinery of one or more units (clubbed together) set up by common proprietor/part-ner(s)/Director(s) within the country for the manufacture of similar/different product(s) exceeds the fixed investment ceiling prescribed in the definition of small scale/ancillary industrial undertaking, then all such units would be liable for de-registration'.It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that subsequently the Department of Small Scale Industries, have issued a clarification on 17-5-1993 where it was observed thus:'It should be understood that industrial undertaking is different from its form of ownership. The forms of ownership as stated in the notification are of three types viz., proprietary, partnersh...
Kariappa Basalingappa Doddamani Vs. State of Kanataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR382]; ILR1999KAR1639
ORDER1. A discharged probationer, discharged from Judicial Service is before this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia questioning the orders made by the competent authority as illegal inasmuch as there was no fair play and observance of rule of natural justice before framing the impugned order. 2. In support of the prayer in the petition, it is stated that petitioner was appointed on probation as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Judicial Service by respondents by their letter of appointment dated 12-10-1993 and was posted to Munsiff's Court at Chintamani. It appears he reported for duty at Chintamani on 19-10-1993. It is his case that he has satisfactorily completed the period of probation since the respondents have not extended the period of probation after completion of initial period of two years probation, but that assertion is difficult to accept. 3. While petitioner was still on probation, he was served with an order dated 26-2-1996 by ...
Rajashekhar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant215; ILR1999KAR3714; 1999(6)KarLJ219
Acts/Rules/Orders:Constitution of India - Articles 21, 162 and 226;Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 - Section 4(1);Karnataka Country and Town Planning Act, 1961;Karnataka Irrigation Act - Section 29Cases Referred:M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 388;Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628;M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, AIR 1980 SC 1992;Sachindanada Pandey and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1109;S.P. Gupta and Others v. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149;B.V. Narayana Reddy v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1984 Kar. 631, AIR 1985 Kant. 99JUDGEMENTS.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J.1. On a letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan dated 30-9-1996, the Government of Karnataka issued an order Annexure-R5 (in W.P. No. 30959 of 1996) dated 21-11-1996 to the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, authorising the demolition...
Desmond Dominic Rego and Others Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Universities of Healt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Kant203; ILR1999KAR3820; 1999(3)KarLJ391
ORDER1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order.2. To understand the legal issues canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is useful to refer to the facts narrated by one of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1842 to 1844 of 1999. The factual position is more or less common in all the other writ petitions.3. First petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1842 of 1999 is a student of I Year MBBS. He has joined the Kempegowda Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangalore, during the academic year 1997-98. The said institute is affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University. Petitioner had appeared for the I Year MBBS examinations conducted by the respondent-University some time in the month of October, 1998. Petitioner claims that he has secured I class marks in the first two papers namely, Anatomy and Physiology and he has failed in the Biochemistry paper by only one mark in the a...
Tukaram S. Vernekar Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3877; 1999(3)KarLJ28; (1999)IILLJ774Kant
ORDER1. Appellant is employed as a Junior Engineer (Civil) under the respondent-Karnataka State Electricity Board (for short the 'Board'). While working as Junior Engineer, he was placed under suspension on 26-5-1986 on the allegation of certain lapses, acts of omissions and commissions on his part. A regular departmental enquiry was ordered against him. Sri H. Nagappa, Retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as Specially Empowered Authority for holding the enquiry. Enquiry Officer exonerated him of the charges levelled against him. Report of the Enquiry Officer is dated 5-10-1994.2. The matter was placed before the Disciplinary Authority which disagreed with the enquiry report. After recording its reasons for differing with the enquiry report but without issuing notice to the appellant, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to impose the punishment of withholding of one annual increment falling due next without cumulative effect with a severe warning that repetition of the mi...
The Superintendent of Central Excise Head-quarters Preventive, Bangalo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC33; 1999LC74(Karnataka); 1999(111)ELT27(Kar); ILR1999KAR1402; 1999(3)KarLJ413
Y. Bhaskar Rao, Actg. C.J.1. The respondents 1 to 5 in the writ petition filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition directing the release of the seized stock.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent 1 is the Karnataka Soapnut Powder Manufacturers Association (Regd.), at Bangalore. Respondent 2 is Sree Ramakrishna Soapnut Works, Mysore. The writ petition is filed praying to declare that the seizure of soapnut powder and the book of accounts pertaining to the respondent 2 as highhanded and without authority of law, and further seeking a direction to the appellants to forthwith release to the respondent 2, his seized articles and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the appellants to forbear from insisting upon the respondents registering themselves obtaining any licence in respect of the processing of soapnut into soapnut powder, the marking thereof, and also directing them to forbear from insisting upon...
H.P. Srinivas Vs. Mysore Minerals Limited, Bangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1685; 1999(5)KarLJ442
ORDER1. The petitioner in this case seeks for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 9-6-1994 passed by the first respondent, who was the Disciplinary Authority and the endorsement bearing No. PER:35:ENQ:94-95:5405, dated 3-11-1994 issued by the second respondent, the Appellate Authority herein and further sought for issue of a writ of mandamus to declare the orders passed by the respondents as illegal and further sought for issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his post by granting the salary and consequential benefits, including the continuity of service, urging various legal contentions. 2. The brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The first respondent is a 'Government Company' (in short, 'the company) within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, it is an authority within the meaning of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »