Karnataka Court May 1999 Judgments
Jaykumar Anagol Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2843; 1999(6)KarLJ489
ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as a member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (for short, 'KPSC') on 16-4-1983. At the time of his appointment as member of the KPSC, he was holding the post in the super time-scale of IAS and drawing a basic pay of Rs. 2,750/- and Dearness Allowance of Rs. 2,550/-. On his appointment as a member of the KPSC, he became a constitutional functionary and his status as Government servant came to an end. When he was holding the post of member of the KPSC, the pay scale of the IAS super time-scale was revised with effect from 1-1-1986. As the benefit of this revision of pay scale was not extended to the petitioner, he is before this Court.2. This petition is for a direction to the respondents to grant the revision of pay scale with effect from 1-1-1986 and pay him the arrears of salary for the period from 1-1-1986 to 15-4-1989. The respondents have stated in their statement of objections that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of...
Tag this Judgment!Sajjanraj Bagrecha Vs. Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Minist ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(66)ECC522; 2000(118)ELT558(Kar); 1999(6)KarLJ241
ORDER1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent in imposing the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- for violation of Section 4-I(1)(a) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Clause 8(1)(f) and (g) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Order, 1955. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner that he has obtained import licence of Rs. 7.50 lakhs for import of steel in the name of a fictitious concern by submitting a forged SSI certificate and forged export order, It is also alleged that the documents for obtaining the import licence were signed by the petitioner and the petitioner executed a legal undertaking on behalf of Balaji Industries a fictitious firm to fulfil the export obligation on 6-2-1981 and that the petitioner had helped one Mr. G. Hemraj in getting Import Licence and opening L C at Punjab National Bank, Chickpet Branch, in the name of Balaji Industries, Chickmagalur, a fictitious concern.2. Petitioner applied for copy of the document on the basis of w...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jeetendar Gandhi Vs. Huthappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ261
ORDER1. This revision under the Small Causes Courts Act, 1964 arises from the judgment and decree dated 2-1-1996 passed by the XV Additional Small Causes Judge (SCCH 17), Bangalore (Mr. N. Subba Rao), whereby the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 22,925-00.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 to 3 have taken loan of Rs. 15,000/- on 10-10-1990 from the plaintiff-revision petitioner for interest at the rate of 18% per annum and agreed to repay the same within one year. According to the plaintiffs case the promissory note and consideration receipt were executed by defendants. The plaintiff's further case is that despite issue of legal notice dated 15-4-1993 the defendants-respondents did not repay the loan with interest. So the plaintiff has filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15.000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. amounting to Rs. 7,425/- and notice charges of Rs. 500/- in all for Rs. 22,925-...
Tag this Judgment!Tadalam G. Dwarakanath and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1999
Reported in: [1999]239ITR831(KAR); [1999]239ITR831(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, dated December 31, 1993, by which, the revision under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act was rejected, on the ground that the amount of Rs. 5,00,913 in respect of embezzlement loss relating to earlier year cannot be allowed in the assessment year 1986-87. The petitioner was maintaining the books of account. In respect of the accounting period ending on June 30, 1984, books were audited by the auditor and it was found that the embezzlement started from 1982-83 to 1984-85. Yearwise break-up has been given in the order of the Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, observed :'Embezzlement loss incurred during the year ending June 30, 1985, amounting to Rs. 28,025 is allowed. The assessee is not allowed to carry forward of previous years embezzlement losses pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85 and previous assessment years for the reasons mentioned in the assessment order for ...
Tag this Judgment!State by Sho, Byndoor Police Station Vs. Chandrakantha Mogera and Othe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)113; I(2000)DMC532; ILR1999KAR3006; 1999(6)KarLJ127
1. The State has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th September, 1995 passed by the Additional Munsiff and JMPC, Kundapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494 and 109 of the IPC.2. The brief facts of the case is -On 20-4-1986 at Kaikini Village in Batkal Taluk the first respondent married P.W. 1 Sanku and after 8 days of the said marriage, the respondents began to harass P.W. 1 for getting more ornaments from her parents' house and also pushed her out of her house. The complainant has further stated that on 21-5-1989 at Yedthare of Byndoor Village, Kundapur Taluk accused 1 got married with another lady viz., respondent 5-Sarojini at the instance of the respondents. As such P.W. 1 lodged the complaint for the said offence.3. The learned Magistrate referred this case under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. for investigation to CPI, Kundapur. He filed the charge-sheet after the investigation. As such the trial took place. I...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Iragamma Vs. B.N. Rangaiah Setty and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ152
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the order dated 15-5-1997, which is as follows:(a) to set aside the order dated 15-5-1997 in Appeal No. 307 of 1992 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, as found at Annexure-C;(b) to quash the impugned order dated 22-9-1989 in LRR/CR/95/86-87 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar as per Annexure-A insofar as it relates to forfeiture the schedule lands to the Government.2. The fact that gave rise to the petition is that the petitioner is the daughter of one Chowdappa. The first respondent is the son and the second respondent is the grandson of one Shamaiah Setty. The said Shamaiah Setty filed a suit against the father of Chowdappa in O.S. No. 220 of 1964 on the file of the Munsiff at Kolar for recovery of the money and the same came to be decreed. The said Shamaiah Setty filed an Execution Case No. 254 of 1973 and brought Sy. Nos. 75/7, 13, 34/1 and 92 of Beeramahalli, in all measuring 10...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Venugopala Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1999
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Kar)46; [1999]239ITR895(KAR); [1999]239ITR895(Karn)
V. K. Singhal, J.1. By this writ petition, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated January 19, 1999, passed under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, has been challenged. The prayer made for revision of calculation to the Commissioner of Income-tax was rejected on January 19, 1999. The petitioner moved the Central Board of Direct Taxes on January 1, 1999, stating that the amount along with the returns should be appropriated towards tax but not towards interest. In pursuance of the representation the petitioner was informed that the Scheme of 1998 is different from Section 140A of the Income-tax Act.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech, while explaining the objectives of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, observed (see [1998] 231 ITR 67) :'I, therefore, propose to introduce a new scheme called the 'SAMADHAN'. The scheme would apply to both direct or indirect taxes and offer waiver of interest, penalty, and immunity from prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Venugopala Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1999
Reported in: [1999]106TAXMAN215(Kar)
ORDERBy this writ petition, the order of the Commissioner dated 19-1-1999 passed under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, has been challenged. The prayer made for revision of calculation to the Commissioner was rejected on 19-1-1999. The petitioner moved the CBDT on 1-1-999 stating that the amount along with the returns should be appropriated towards tax but not towards interest. In pursuance of the representation, the petitioner was informed that the Scheme of 1999 is different from section 140A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Finance Minister in his budget speech, while explaining the objectives of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, observed:'... I, therefore, proposed to introduce a new scheme called as Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. The scheme will apply to both Direct or Indirect taxes and offer waiver of interest, penalty, and immunity from prosecution on payment of arrears of direct taxes at current rates.'It is submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. M. Jayamma Vs. the Commissioner for Public Instructions, Governme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ657
ORDER1. Heard Sri H.V. Ramaswamy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.2. This petition has been filed as civil revision from the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore dated 26-9-1995 in Miscellaneous Appeal (EAT) No. 65 of 1987. That appeal had been dismissed taking the view that there is no order of any authority which affects the services of the appellant and so appeal does not lie.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner challenged this order and submitted that even though the Tribunal is not a Civil Court and is a Tribunal, this Court may not dismiss the revision on this ground as it has got ample power under Article 227 to interfere where order suffers from jurisdictional error or like particularly when the matter relates to jurisdiction. The learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it on the ground that appeal was not maintainable as no order had been passed by the authority which affects appellant's servi...
Tag this Judgment!The Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR796; 1999(5)KarLJ33
ORDER1. The petitioner, House Building Co-operative Society herein have filed the instant writ petition with a prayer that the Notification bearing No. CMW 242 CLM 92, Bangalore, dated 30-4-1993 published in the Gazette, Extraordinary dated 30-4-1993, copy as at Annexure-F to writ petition, be quashed. In issuing the same Rule 20(e) of the Co-operative Societies Rules came to be added below Rule 20(d) to say that the Cooperative Societies shall contribute 2% out of its net profit of the year as contribution for Co-operative Education Fund provided dividend declared is above 10%.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Suman and the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri P.G.C. Chengappa, appearing for the respondent 1, the State, the respondent 2, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the respondent 3, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suman had taken me through the facts of the case and further the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »