Karnataka Court July 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.
Atamjit Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1999
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Kar)414; [2001]247ITR356(KAR); [2001]247ITR356(Karn); [2001]114TAXMAN120(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Commissioner can condone the delay on the part of the declarant in paying the tax in respect of the income declared under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997.2. The Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (in short 'the scheme'), introduced by Chapter IV of the Finance Act, 1997 ('the Act' for short), was in force between July 1, 1997, and December 31, 1997. The relevant provisions of the Scheme are :Section 64 of the Act relates to charge of tax on voluntarily disclosed income. It provides for filing of a declaration in respect of any undisclosed income chargeable to tax under the Income-tax Act (as enumerated in Subsection (1) of Section ,64) in the manner provided in Section 65, between July 1, 1997, and December 31, 1997.3. Section 65 provides that a declaration under Section 64(1) shall be made to the Commissioner and such declaration shall be in the prescribed form.4. S...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Cement Corporati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ349; (2000)ILLJ1204Kant
ORDER1. The respondent herein questioned the order passed by the ESI Corporation in ESI Application No. 21 of 1994 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court at Hubli under Section 75 of the Act, wherein among other contentions, the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that the order passed by the ESI Corporation under Section 85B of the Act is not proper and legal as the Regional Director had no power to pass the order in question. The Court after hearing both the parties and following the judgment in Hindustan Monark (Private) Limited v Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Another, held that the Regional Director could not pass the order under Section 85B of the ESI Act. Therefore, on that only point the application was allowed and the order passed by the respondent was set aside. Being aggrieved by that order, the Corporation has preferred this appeal.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The substantial questi...
Siddasetty and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ703
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. The three appellants before us were the original accused in Sessions Case No. 37/1991 on the file of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore. The accused were charged with having committed the murder of Mahadeva Setty on 30-1 -1991 at about 3.30 p.m. in front of Narayanaswamy temple at Mangala village which comes within the jurisdiction of Kuderu Police Station. Briefly stated, the prosecution contends that there was a dispute between the side of the deceased and the side of the accused in respect of a share in the land ad measuring 3 acres being Sy. No. 587/4. It has come on record that the deceased and his brothers and the accused were quarrelling over the share in respect of this land because the three accused who were the sons of the first wife of Mada Setty contended that they were entitled to the proportionate share whereas this was being resisted by the deceased and his brothers who were the sons by the second wife. We are not much concerned with the inte...
Haji D. HussaIn (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Vijayaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3087; 2000(1)KarLJ188
ORDER1. This revision is filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, by the respondent in H.R.C. No. 29 of 1985, on the file of the learned Munsiff,Raichur, against the order passed in H.R.C.R.P. No. 4 of 1991 by the learned District Judge, Raichur, confirming the eviction order passed by the Trial Court.2. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties with regard to their position and status in H.R.C. No. 29 of 1985, on the file of the Trial Court. petitioner Vijayaraj filed the eviction petition-H.R.C. No. 29 of 1985 in the Trial Court seeking for eviction of the respondent-Haji D. Hussain (original respondent) from the petition schedule house property bearing Municipal No. 4-2-32 situate at Mangalwarpet, Raichur, alleging that he became the owner of the said premises by virtue of a registered sale deed executed in his favour on 8-5-1984 by the previous owners Bibi Noor and her son Syed Mohd. Isaq and after the purchase of the said premises he informed the respondent a...
State of Karnataka Vs. Syed Mehaboob
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1184; 1999(6)KarLJ605
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor on merits because after taking us through the facts and figures, his submission was that the acquittal order in this case is unjustified because it can clearly be demonstrated from the dates and figures that the offence of misappropriation has been made out at least in respect of two amounts of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 754-30 ps. The submission was that even assuming there is some reference to amounts being due to the accused by the society that it is an entirely different head of liability and cannot justify the accused who was the Secretary dipping into the society's funds.2. We need to record here that this case, like many others, is one in which there is an accounting shortage that has been alleged. If the accused was in charge of the society's affairs and if on an examination of the audit report and/or records some shortage is discovered, it could in an appropriate case create a civil liability insofar as the accused...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Dr. V. Vijayakum ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)431; ILR1999KAR3697; 1999(5)KarLJ660
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (the original complainant) challenging the order of discharge dated 4-8-1998 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 70 of 1998.2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner has filed a complaint against the respondents herein for the contravention of the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the 'Act') punishable, under Section 85(a) of the Act. After filing of the complaint the parties were heard on the charges. The Special Court placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Aravinda Parimala Works, Mysore and Others v Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Binnypet, Bangalore, held that Section 85(a) of the Act is applicable to a ease where there is non-payment of the total contribution and it is not applicable where part payment of the contribution is made by the accused. Accordingly, by the impugned order, exercising ...
Abdul Khader Alias Fayaz Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ4220; 1999(66)ECC525; ILR1999KAR3869; 1999(5)KarLJ624
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, C.J. 1. This writ of habeas corpus is filed by the petitioner assailing the detention order dated 23-9-1998 passed by the second respondent under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'COFEPOSA Act').The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of Bangalore and a businessman. On the basis of the information that he was unauthorisedly indulging in foreign exchange transaction as his acts were prejudicial to the conservation and augmentation of foreign exchange, the detention order was passed on 23-9-1998 by the 2nd respondent under the COFEPOSA Act. That order is challenged in the present writ petition.2. The learned Counsel Mr. Kiran S. Javali for the petitioner has contended that even taking the grounds annexed to the detention order are taken to be true and correct, the acts alleged against the petitioner in the impugned order will not cause any prejudice to c...
K. Ramachandra Mayya Vs. Sanjeeva S.Putran (Deceased) by L.Rs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3306; 1999(6)KarLJ370
ORDER1. This is a tenant's revision petition filed against the order of eviction passed in Revision (Rent) Petition No. 138 of 1986 on the file of the learned District Judge, D.K., Mangalore, confirming the order of eviction passed by learned II Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, in H.R.C. No. 67 of 1981 on the ground under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('Act' for short). For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the Trial Court.2. The original petitioner died during the pendency of this proceeding and his L.Rs are brought on record. Petitioner filed H.R.C. No. 67 of 1981 in the Trial Court seeking for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground under Section 21(1)(b), (c), (f) and (p) of the Act alleging that, he is in occupation of the petition premises bearing Door No. 5-4, situated in Kotenkar Compound at Idya Village within the limits of Surathkal Municipality, Mangalore Taluk, on a monthly rent...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Catholic Club and Anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)KarLJ290; (2000)ILLJ1136Kant
M.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. The first respondent herein filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act before the E.S.I. Court at Bangalore in E.S.I. Application No. 1 of 1998 questioning the order passed by the appellant herein directing him to pay the contribution of Rs. 59,600/- At the request of the first respondent, stay order was also granted by the Court on January 13, 1998. Subsequently, the appellant appeared and filed objections to the main petition. At that time, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for extension of stay. On the basis of that application, the E.S.I. Court extended the stay till the next date of hearing by order dated March 6, 1998. Being aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Corporation has preferred this appeal.2. Though notice was served on respondents 1 and 2, they have remained unrepresented.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to Section 75(2...
Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Dharwad Co-Opera ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ174; (2000)ILLJ355Kant
ORDER1. The respondent herein made an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act to hold that the applicant therein was not liable to pay the contribution on the amounts paid to the contractors and to hold that the applicant is not liable to pay the sum of Rs. 24,079.00 to the respondent.2. The appellant herein filed objections on that application. After hearing both the parties, the learned ESI Court, Hubli, in ESI Application No. 17 of 1991 allowed the application and the matter was remanded back to the ESI Corporation with a direction to implead the contractors named by the applicant and then to decide the matter vide its order dated 31-1-1998. Being aggrieved by that order, the ESI Corporation/respondent has preferred this appeal.3. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the finding of the Insurance Court that the contractor was a necessary party to the proceedings under Section 45(a) of the Act calls for interference.4. The learned...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »