Karnataka Court March 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.
Mohan Kamalkar Sindgikar and Others Vs. Joshi Metal Industries, Bijapu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR876]; ILR1999KAR2885; 1999(6)KarLJ347; (2000)ILLJ859Kant
ORDER1. 34 workmen of the first respondent-industrial establishment approached the Labour Court, Bijapur with a request under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) for computing the money due to each one of them in respect of the closure of the first respondent-establishment. By its order dated 31-1-1996, the Labour Court quantified the amount payable to each of the said 34 workmen. In pursuance thereof, a certificate under Section 33-C(1) of the Act also is issued, providing for recovery of the amounts concerned as arrears of land revenue. In the meantime, second respondent-Bank, in relation to the amounts that it had advanced to the first respondent on security of the assets of the first respondent that had been mortgaged by way of deposit of title deeds, obtained awards under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, since the second respondent-Bank is a Co-operative Credit Bank. In the course of realising the amounts under the sa...
Vineeth Education Society (R), Bangalore Vs. the Bangalore Development ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2402; 1999(6)KarLJ101
ORDER1. The petitioner is a registered association under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. It has made several applications to the B.D.A. seeking for allotment of C.A. sites for the purpose of social and cultural activities of the institution. But, in spite of several efforts, the petitioner was not able to get a C.A. site allotted by the B.D.A..2. The B.D.A. published a notification dated 19-1-1994 calling for applications for allotment of the C.A. sites. Pursuant to the said notification the petitioner made an application for allotment of Site No. 4 situated in Pillanna Garden. The 2nd respondent was also one of the applicants for allotment of the said site along with other four applicants.All the applications were placed before the Committee constituted under Rule 7, sub-rule (2) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenities Sites) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). The Committee in its proceedings dated 26-03-1994 allo...
Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Tds) Vs. Jindal Tractbel Power Co. L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Kar)115; [1999]240ITR189(KAR); [1999]240ITR189(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. This petition is filed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the stay application submitted by the first respondent. Two applications for stay of the demand of Rs. 1,86,32,311 and Rs. 15,22,95,395 were moved along with the appeals by the assessee. The appeals are still pending. The assessee was heard on the stay application. The Bench was consisting of the learned Vice-President and the learned Judicial Member. The petitioner is aggrieved by the various observations which have been made by the learned Vice-President The Judicial Member has not agreed with the procedure and the finding recorded by the learned Vice-President and a dissenting order has been passed.2. At this stage without going to the dispute as to what has been observed by the learned Vice-President or by the learned Judicial Member, it may be observed that any observations made in the stay application are only tentative and do not aff...
M. Srinivasalu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1999
Reported in: [1999]239ITR282(KAR); [1999]239ITR282(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The validity of Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been challenged in this petition as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Section 148 refers to the escaped assessment and earlier the notice could have been served upon the assessee requiring him to furnish the return in not less than 30 days as may be specified in the notice. The words 'not being less than 30 days' were deemed to be omitted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, with effect from April 1, 1989. This court in the case of Winter Care Pvt. Ltd. W. P. No. 33832 of 1992 DD 15-2-1993, held that the. assessee has to be allowed a minimum period of 30 days and the notice calling for filing of the returns within 30 days is, not in conformity with the provisions of Section 148. The assessee was issued a notice under Section 148 on November 25, 1991, requiring him to furnish the return of income within 30 days of service of notice. Assessment was also framed which was challenged in app...
Leo Tauro Vs. Gragory Fernandes and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant30
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned advocates and the learned Govt. Advocate on behalf of R-4 and R-5 on merits. There are in all three orders that are the subject matter of this W.P. The first one concerns the order passed in the petitioner's own case wherein the Tribunal has granted him occupancy rights in respect of lesser areas than what was originally claimed. The other two orders are in respect of cases filed by R-1 & R-2 and the petitioner's grievance is that occupancy rights have been granted to R-1 and R-2 in respect of some areas which the petitioner had originally claimed and according to him right until the year 1990 he was not aware of the complications until R-1 and R-2 created certain disputes which necessitated the petitioner having to file O.S. 1070/1990 for an injunction. It was only in 1991 that the orders of 1977 have been challenged through the present petition and it is contended that due to the illiteracy and ignorance of the petitioner, the challenge has come...
Geep Industrial Syndicate Limited, Mysore Vs. Geep Industrial Syndicat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3258; 1999(6)KarLJ521; (1999)IILLJ1197Kant
ORDER1. The question that has arisen in this proceeding is as to whether the Standing Orders could provide for a matter not listed in the Schedule to the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 ('Act' for short). This question has arisen in the following circumstances. Petitioner, the Geep Industrial Syndicate Limited, has its registered office at Allahabad and its manufacturing units at Metagahally, Mysore and also at Allahabad. On 28-6-1983, the Standing Orders applicable to the petitioner were certified by the Certifying Officer. Clause 16 of the Standing Orders so certified in the year 1983 reads thus: '16. Transfer/change of place of work.-- (a) A workman may be transferred from one Department or Section to another Department or Section or from one machine or work place to another, or from one job to another similar job within the Industrial Establishment. (b) Whenever there is insufficient work in one or more than one Section/Department or for any other valid reasons,...
Ramdev Agencies Vs. Addl. Asstt. Commr. of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(114)ELT17(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. These petitions are disposed of by this common judgment since the controversy involved is also common.The dispute is with regard to levy of tax on sale of handkerchiefs which are claimed to be exempted under Entry 8A of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The said entry is as under :'All varieties of textiles, namely, cotton, woollen, silk or artificial silk including rayon or nylon, whether manufactured in mills, powerlooms or handlooms and hosiery cloth in lengths.'Entry (ii-a) of Section 14 of the CST Act has declared the cotton fabric as commodity of special importance in inter-State trade and commerce. The entry reads as under :'(ii-a) cotton fabrics covered under Heading Nos. 52.05, 52.06, 52.07, 52.08, 52,09, 52.10, 52.11, 52.12, 58.01, 58.02, 58.03, 58.04, 58.05, 59.01, 59.03, 59.05. 59.06 and 60.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986).'Entry 12 of the Fourth Schedule is as under : Textile (Sale by the first o...
Syed Beri Alias Chayyabba Vs. Ahmad Beri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ316
ORDER1. Parties herein are brothers. The respondent-elder brother had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of a house property against the petitioner, the younger brother. That was in the year 1988. After the parties spent two years in litigating, the respondent-plaintiff sought for and was permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit with respect to the same subject-matter, but, subject to payment of costs to the petitioner-defendant. The costs were not quantified. It was incumbent upon the respondent-plaintiff to comply with the said direction relating to payment of costs if necessary, even by asking the Court to quantify the same before the institution of the subsequent suit. However, without compliance in that regard, respondent-plaintiff filed the subsequent suit. Petitioner-defendant, therefore, sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC. The Trial Court has negatived the petitioner-defendant's claim. Hence, this revis...
B.R. Rangaswamy Vs. D. Syed Younous and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2539; 2000(4)KarLJ187
1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 15-4-1989 passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 8443 of 1980 (Old No. 216 of 1980) insofar as rejection of his suit for specific performance directing defendant 1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property is concerned. Original defendants 2 to 4 have filed cross objections challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court insofar as the Findings against them are concerned.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The suit schedule property bearing Old No. 14, New No. 86, situate in Richmond Road, Civil Station, Bangalore, belongs to defendant 1-D. Syed Younous. As per the plaint allegations, in the year 1978 when defendant 1 was on the look out for a purchaser for the schedule property since he had not been getting proper returns therefrom; defendant 1 had contacted the plaintiff. After several meetings between the plaintiff and de...
V.B. Desai and anr. (L/Rs. of Late B.J. Desai) Vs. Administrative Offi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1999
Reported in: [2003]260ITR273(KAR); [2003]260ITR273(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioners prayed for quashing paragraph 25 of the order of the Settlement Commission dated June 15, 1984, in respect of the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 and also the order dated January 22, 1991, refusing to rectify the order dated June 15, 1984, under which, prayer to delete paragraph 25 was made.2. The facts of the case are, that an order was passed by the Settlement Commission on the application moved by B. J. Desai and Sons, by which, directions with regard to tax payable were given. In paragraph 25 it is observed that the Income-tax Officer will issue a demand notice and also revise the assessment of partners so far as it covers the share income from the applicant firm. Tax payable by the applicant and the partners will be paid in eight quarterly instalments, the first instalment starting after 35 days of service of demand notice. Interest under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act was to be charged from the firm as well as the partners with the la...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »