Karnataka Court January 2000 Judgments
R. Guruswamy Vs. M/S. Sree Balaji Cotton Industries, Halakundi, Bellar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2000
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas475(Kar); ILR2000KAR1415; 2000(3)KarLJ476
ORDER1. Criminal Petitions 69 to 72 of 2000 are consolidated for the purpose of disposal by a common order, as the facts are the same and the legal contentions are also the same.2. The petitioner who is one of the Directors of M/s. Guruvayurappan Textiles (P) Limited, is stated to have issued the cheques referred to in favour of the complainant M/s. Sree Balaji Cotton Industries, by its Proprietor Mr. V. Ravi kumar and the cheques on presentation was bounced. A notice was issued calling upon the Company M/s. Guruvayurappan Textiles Private Limited, to make good the amounts for which the cheques had been issued, within the time limited by law, the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate took cognizance for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to the accused.3. The Counsel for the petitioner is seeking to challenge the orders of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused on the grou...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Ramachandrappa Kilabanur and Others Vs. Kum. Vidya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ371
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri S.P. Kulkarni and Sri Ashok Kalyanashetty and Sri Basavaraj Godachi, learned Counsels for respondent.This appeal arises from the judgment and order of remand passed by the II Additional District Judge, Bijapur in R.A. No. 47 of 1995. The suit O.S. No. 59 of 1995, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge was for partition and separate possession of l/5th share in the suit schedule ancestral properties.2. The parties to the compromise included defendant 1-Suresh Ramachandrappa.The compromise decree having been passed the respondent in the present appeal, namely Kumari Vidya, daughter of Suresh-defendant 1, in the suit, under the guardianship of her mother filed the appeal.3. The appeal having been filed, the Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court's compromise decree and remanded the suit for trial afresh.4. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the parties to the suit, who had entered into compromise, that is plaintiffs and defendan...
Tag this Judgment!E. Bhaskar Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4718; 2000(6)KarLJ435
ORDER1. The instant matter had been listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group. The petitioner is represented by Sri Vigneswara S. Shastry whereas, the respondent 1-State and its authorities, the respondent 2-Deputy Commissioner and the respondent 3-Assistant Commissioner are represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri B. Manohar.2. In filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner herein had challenged the order passed by the respondent 3-Assistant Commissioner, copy as at Annexure-D to writ petition, order dated 19-5-1998 in R.A. No. 5 of 1997-98 passed by the respondent 2-Deputy Commissioner, copy as at Annexure-G to writ petition and further the consequential notice dated 19-3-1999 issued by the Deputy Commissioner demanding the conversion fine and penalty, copy as at Annexure-H to writ petition.3. Before proceeding further, I feel that certain facts relevant for the purpose have to be set out and they are as follows:That the petitioner herein at the first inst...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.G.E.F. Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2000
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Kar)280; [2000]244ITR665(KAR); [2000]244ITR665(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated July 23, 1997, for the assessment year 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that self-assessment tax paid by the assessee gets adjusted against the assessed tax and thus partakes of the character of tax paid in pursuance of the assessment order, and in that view in directing the Assessing Officer to allow interest under Section 244(1A) of the Act after considering the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee also as tax paid in pursuance of the assessment ?'2. The issue before the Tribunal was whether interest under Section 244(1A) is allowable even on self-assessment tax payments made by the assessee or not. The net tax payable as per the appellate order after giving credit for the Industrial Development Bank of India deposit, TDS and advance tax paid was Rs. 4,27,518. However, after giving' cr...
Tag this Judgment!Elgi Tyres and Tread Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2000
Reported in: [2000]120STC261(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. In this revision, the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated July 31, 1996, in respect of the assessment year 1990-91 is in dispute.2. The assessee undertook a contract for retreading of tyres from Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The assessing authority granted exemption for the turnover of Rs. 6.30.094.30 considering it to be inter-State transaction. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, exercised the revisional powers under Section 21(2) ex parte. The Tribunal was of the view that retreading of tyres amounts to deemed sale within the State under Section 5B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with entry 24 of the Sixth Schedule to the Act.3. The controversy that has arisen is because of explanation 3(c) to the definition of 'sale', which is to the following effect :'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (Central Act 3 of 1930), for the purpose of this Act, the transfer of property in goods (wheth...
Tag this Judgment!Pulakeshi Power Company Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant256; ILR2000KAR1232; 2000(2)KarLJ314
ORDER1. The petitioner-Company, which is incorporated with the sole object of undertaking a power project in the Karnataka State, has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the letters dated 30-9-1997 and 27-2-1998 at Annexurc-A and A-1 respectively issued by the first respondent and further sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to allocate the entire quantity of Naphtha required by it for the purpose of its power project to be located in Ramanagaram Taluk, Bangalore District with a capacity of 500 MW and further direction to the 5th respondent to handover 698 acres of land required for the project in Ramanagaram Taluk as per the agreement dated 25-11-1996 between the petitioner and the 5th respondent and further to direct respondents 1, 2 and 4 to grant counter guarantees to the petitioner and other facilities as granted to foreign companies like Cogentrix for setting up power project in India and further sought for direction to responden...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Padmini Products, Bangalore Vs. the Regional Director, Employees' ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR414]; ILR2000KAR2370; 2000(2)KarLJ369; (2000)IILLJ58Kant
1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 arises from the judgment and order dated 25th July, 1998 delivered by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Bangalore, in ESI Application No. 46 of 1989 moved under Section 75(1)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act), whereby the ESI Court has modified the order of the Deputy Regional Director, dated 20-12-1988 passed under Section 75-A of the Act and has directed the applicant-appellant to pay contribution of Rs. 1,05,545-61 ps. instead of Rs. 1,10,410-30 ps. as ordered by the Deputy Regional Director with interest as per law and subject to the adjustment of the amount already paid. 2. The appellant-applicant admittedly as per the facts narrated in the memorandum of appeal is engaged in the manufacture of agarbathi and is covered by the ESI Act. According to the appellant-applicant, it has always been regularly paying ESI contribution. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Abdul Samad and Another Vs. Jabbar Hussain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC38; 2001ACJ574; [2000(85)FLR765]; ILR2000KAR1437; 2000(2)KarLJ439; (2000)IILLJ391Kant
1. This appeal is filed by the respondent against the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, dated 20-4-1996, awarding compensation to the respondent-claimant by assessing the permanent disability at 100% due to the fracture of left hand sustained by him during the course of his employment while driving the lorry bearing No. MYK 6614.2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Medical Officer P.W. 2 who has examined the respondent-claimant has estimated the permanent disability suffered by the claimant at 40% and he has also given evidence to the effect that the respondent-claimant can drive the vehicle though not as effectively as he could drive prior to the date of accident. He therefore contended that the learned Commissioner has erred in drawing an inference from the evidence of the Dr. P.W. 2 that the claimant has suffered 100% disability and that it is not possib...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Janardhana Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR405(KAR); [2001]250ITR405(Karn); [2002]120TAXMAN259a(Kar)
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated November 25, 1994, pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the changed provisions in the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, especially the provisions of Section 24 of the said Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'kist' amount payable to the Government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The question raised in the present matter is answered by this court in CIT v. D. Dasappa : [2000]246ITR750(KAR) I. T. R. C. No. 5 of 1996, and other connected matters decided on January 5, 2000. Accordingiy, it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that kist amount payable to the Government by the assessee would not be brought within the purview of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Chowdappa and Others Vs. Chowdappa (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR825; 2000(2)KarLJ292
ORDER1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittapur, Gulbarga District dated 29-5-1999 in Execution Petition No. 45 of 1993 on an application by judgment-debtors-1 to 5 under Section 9 read with Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents are the decree-holders and as well the other judgment-debtors.The decree-holders sued out the execution of the decree in O.S. No. 111 of 1963 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga, in Execution Petition No. 22 of 1981 in the same Court. But subsequently and as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) was enlarged, the execution was transferred to the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittapur and numbered as Ex. 49 of 1993.2. In view of the age and the nature of the litigation, it would be necessary to state the facts in detail. Certain Papayya Kalal and Antaiah Kalal,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »