Karnataka Court June 1999 Judgments

C.B. Chandrashekar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ345

ORDER1. Heard Mr. Shankaranarayana for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that they have applied for grant of 5 acres of land in Sy. No. 479 and authorities refused to grant the land on the ground that the land has been transferred to the Forest Department under Section 71 of Karnataka Land RevenueAct. They are aggrieved by the transfer refusal to grant land to them. In the statement of objections filed by Government it is reported that the Forest Department approached the Government and wanted the land to be preserved for forest. A spot inspection was made and it was found that there are valuable trees and it was so thick where it is believed 'Rishis' were sitting for meditation. There are temples where poojas are carried out. Therefore it was decided to protect the land and transferred to Forest Department by exercising powers under Section 71 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is further submit...

State of Karnataka Vs. Aslam Alias Aslam Pasha

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000CriLJ1167

1. We have heard the learned Stale Public Prosecutor in support of this appeal.2. This is another gruesome case of alleged wife burning and the statement of the deceased to which there is a reference is supposed to have been recorded by the doctor who says so in terms in his evidence. After hearing the learned State Public Prosecutor at some length on me last occasion, we have requested that the records be called for as these are serious cases and the Court had to be extremely cautious in the matter of verifying the correct facts. On a perusal of the record, we find that the statement had not been recorded by the doctor but that it had been recorded by the Police Constable 7322, who again has not been examined. There is some thumb impression on the statement and the statement contains a certificate from the doctor to the effect that it was recorded before him. This statement or certificate is wholly insufficient as it does not meet with the requirement of law and we also take note of t...

Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERV.K. Singhal, J. 1. Notice issued under Section 10 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act dated December 28, 1996 has been assailed in this petition. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has found that the petitioner has failed to get himself registered under Section 10 of the KST Act and therefore an opportunity was given before filing the charge sheet for the offences committed under Section 29(2) of the Act. Notice dated June 8, 1998 was issued to the petitioner earlier in response to which the reply dated June 26, 1998 was submitted stating the circumstances by which the petitioner considered themselves not a dealer. By letter dated November 9, 1998, the petitioner was informed that for chartering the tug vessel 'Kumari Tarini', the situs of lease undertaken is at NMPT, Mangalore. The responsibility of the lessor was to deliver and place the leased tug under disposal of lessee on daily hire charges. The petitioner was considered to be a lessor liable for registration and pay...

S. Ganeshan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2000KAR298; 2000(5)KarLJ338

ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this petition is whether, a selection which is affected by gross irregularities and is made in breach of the procedure and the norms prescribed therefor can be cancelled even after those selected by any such process have been appointed against the available posts. The question arises in the context of the selection of the petitioners and their consequent appointment against the post of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Protection Force (ASIPF) having been annulled on the basis of an enquiry into allegations of large scale bungling in the making of such selections. The petitioners havequestioned the order setting aside the selection, the panel drawn on the basis of the same and the promotion orders issued in their favour. The controversy arises against the following backdrop:2. The petitioners were working in the Railway Protection Force as Head Constables. A 'limited Departmental Competitor' for filling up 18 vacan...

Kusuma Poojarthy Vs. Land Tribunal, Udupi Taluk, DakshIn Kannada and O ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR3948; 1999(6)KarLJ482

ORDER1. The petitioner in this petition had filed Form No. 2-A to register her as owner in respect of the land measuring 25 cents in Sy. No. 88/3C3 situated at Padu Village, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District. Her application came to be rejected by the Tribunal by means of its order dated 11th January, 1982, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to this petition. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the said order is called in question.2. Sri Vyasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the prayer of the petitioner that the impugned order is liable to be quashed made four submissions. Firstly, he submitted that under Section 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') a person who is residing in a dwelling house is entitled to be registered as the owner of the said house and land appurtenant thereto which is necessary for the enjoyment of the house and when that is the position,...

Shivalingeshwar Oil Mill, Haveri Vs. Chanaveerappa Basalingappa Kaddi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR4125; 1999(6)KarLJ320

ORDER1. This revision by the judgment-debtor Shivalingeshwara Oil Mill, Haveri, represented by its Managing Partner, is directed against the Executing Court's order dated 31-3-1997 passed in Execution No. 6 of 1991 rejecting its contention that it is a 'debtor' within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980 (Act of 1980) and, therefore, its liability under the money decree in execution is deemed to have been discharged by virtue of Section 3 of the Act. 2. Certain undisputed facts giving rise to this revision are that O.S. No. 29 of 1978 for recovery of Rs, 26,635/- with interest was filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the decree-holder') against the petitioner-firm (hereinafter referred to as 'the judgment-debtor'). That suit was decreed by the Trial Court on the basis of compromise between the parties making the decree amount payable in three equal instalments. The first instalment was paid by the judgment-debtor on 15-2-1979. He defaulted in payment of th...

K. Mallesh and Others Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ492

ORDER1. The petitioner 1 being the President and the petitioners 2 to 9 being the Directors of the respondent 3 -- Society had filed the instant writ petition with the prayer for quashing the notice dated 25-9-1998 in No. DRY:ADM:l970:XNN:98-99 copy at Annexure-H to the writ petition issued by the respondent 1.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Deshraj. Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by the Additional Government Advocate Sri M.N. Ramanjaneya Gowda. Respondent 3 having been served with the notice had remained absent before the Court.3. In the instant case in hand, the petitioners had challenged the impugned notice copy at Annexure-H to the writ petition on the ground that the respondent 1 as well as respondent 2 have got no authority to issue the same. By issuing the impugned notice, the respondent 1 called upon the petitioners herein to show cause within 15 days from the date of service of that notice as to why their Society-respondent 3 be not superseded ...

South Canara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Of ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2000]246ITR200(KAR); [2000]246ITR200(Karn)

V.K. Singhal, J.1. By a letter dated September 15, 1998, the petitioner was required to furnish information under Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the deposits of Rs. 50,000 and above during the financial year 1997-98, i.e., from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998. The information was required to be furnished within one week in respect of the name of the depositors/deposits, complete postal address of the depositor, amount and date of deposit, rate of interest and term of deposit. It was mentioned that the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) desired the information. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that desiring of information cannot be equated with the approval of the director in a case where no proceedings are pending.2. Section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act confers the power on the Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) to require any person including a banking company or a...

In the Karnataka High Court V.K. Singhal, J.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Kar)181

ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.By letter dated 15-9-1998, the petitioner was required to furnish information under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of deposits of Rs. 50,000 and above during the financial year 1997-98 i.e. from 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998. The information was required to be furnished within one week in respect of the name of the depositors/deposits, complete postal address of the depositor, amount and date of deposit, rate of interest and term of deposit. It was mentioned that the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) desired the information. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that desiring of information cannot be equated with the approval of the director in a case where no proceedings are pending.2. Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act confer the power on the assessing officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Joint Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) to require any person including a banking company or any officer thereof to furnish infor...

Rathna Bar and Restaurant and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2003]133STC398(Kar)

ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Validity of the Notification dated March 31, 1998 has been assailed in this writ petition. The main ground which is taken is, that, it is not based on the anticipatory tax liability but the classification of the dealers have been made according to the nature of category of trade they are carrying on. A particular restaurant may be having a good turnover while the others may not even be able to have the turnover of even 10 per cent of the security amount demanded. Under Section 10A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, power to demand the security is given, but under the proviso, in respect of different categories of dealers in liquor or beer, the State Government has been conferred with power to fix the amount of security to be demanded from the dealers. This proviso is not taken care of the anticipatory tax liability for which security could be demanded. The amount of security could be under Section 10A(4)(b), equal to one half of the tax anticipated to be payable...