Karnataka Court June 2001 Judgments
Cit Vs. Balakrishna Hatcheries
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Kar)225
Order ASHOK BHAN, J.Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revenue') has filed this petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking a direction to the Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) directing it to refer the following question of law along with the statement of case to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein he has directed the assessing officer to allow investment allowance under section 32A on the plant and machineries used in the poultry business of the assessee?'2. Briefly stated the facts are :This petition arises from the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 258(Bang)/1990 relating to the assessment year 1985-86. Assessee is engaged in the poultry business and while concluding the assessment for the year 1985-86, th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Savitri Samson Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3164; ILR2001KAR4080; 2001(4)KarLJ283
ORDER1. At the stage of consideration of the petition learned Additional State Public Prosecutor raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present petition. He contended that the petitioner has already approached the Sessions Court, Gulbarga, in a petition, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 265 of 2001, filed under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. apprehending her arrest in Criminal Nos. 16 and 17 of 2001 and as the same is pending adjudication, present petition is not at all maintainable. He also submitted that in fact there is an attempt on the part of the petitioner and her Advocate in the Trial Court to mislead the Court. Elaborating the same, he contended that on issuance of notice by the learned Sessions Judge to the learned Prosecutor, the filing of two petitions simultaneously was brought to the notice of the Court and when the Court enquired, as is noted in the order sheet, the Counsel appearing forthe petitioner in the Sessions Court has submitted that the Cri. Misc. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Range Forest Officer, Wildlife Division, Lakkavalli and Another Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3652; 2001(4)KarLJ369
ORDER1. While granting interim custody of a vehicle seized under Section 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ('Act' for short), the Authorised Officer, among other conditions, imposed the condition that the respondent-RC holder of the vehicle concerned should furnish bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 1,90,000/-. In appeal by the respondent, the learned Sessions Judge has, however, set aside this condition. The State has now come up in revision.2. It is to be remembered that in this revision petition, State is not aggrieved by the order of return of vehicle by way of interim custody as such. It is only with regard to doing away with the condition relating to giving of bank guarantee, the revision petitioners, i.e., the Range Forest Officer as well as the Authorised Officer have come up in appeal. In State of Karnataka v K. Krishnan , the Supreme Court said thus.-'We are of the considered view that when any vehicle is seized on the allegation that it was used for committing a forest o...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Shivaram Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ303
1. These writ appeals arise out of common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21977 of 1999, etc. The appellants herein who are the writ petitioners claim to have purchased the sites in dispute from the landholder one Sri C. Ramu (who is not a party in the writ petitions) in the year 1981 by means of registered deeds of sale executed on plain paper under which possession has been purportedly delivered to them. It is also their case that pursuant to the sale deeds, they were put in possession and the entire sale consideration was paid to the said landholder. Claiming that they are interested in the lands and that they were not put on notice either after issuing preliminary notification or at the time of or before passing the award, the appellants filed writ petitions questioning the preliminary notification dated 22-10-1990 (Annexure-F) and the final notification dated 30-3-1991 (Annexure-J). Insofar as the appellants are concerned, the learned Single Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Atmjit Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Kar)219; ILR2001KAR4833; [2001]252ITR233(KAR); [2001]252ITR233(Karn)
P.V. Reddi, C.J.1. We see no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned single judge (see : [2001]247ITR356(KAR) ) holding that in view of non-compliance of Section 67(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997, the declaration filed by the writ petitioner shall be deemed to be non est under the Scheme by virtue of the explicit declaration contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 67. The appellant ought to have paid the tax with interest on or before March 27, 1998. But, she paid the tax with interest only on March 31, 1998. As observed by the learned single judge, when the language in Sub-sections (1) and (2) is specific and clear, it is not possible to give any benefit to the appellant by overlooking the delay of three days. If such benefit is given to the appellant, it amounts to departing from the terms of the Scheme which does not contemplate condonation of delay by embarking on an enquiry whether there was sufficient cause or not for the belated payment or for b...
Tag this Judgment!Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Bhagatram and So ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR520]; ILR2001KAR4089; 2001(4)KarLJ384; (2001)IILLJ973Kant
1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation being aggrieved of the order of the E.S.I. Court, Bangalore in E.S.I. Application No. 183 of 1990, dated 11-4-1996 allowing the application by setting aside the order dated 25-9-1989 passed under Section 45-A of the E.S.I. Act has come up with this appeal.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Respondent 1-M/s. Bhagatram and Sons, an establishment carrying on with the business of manufacturing of sweets with the aid of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (L.P.G.) was called upon to pay contribution to the E.S.I, authorities by registering its establishment and to produce the wage and attendance registers for the purpose of determining the contribution. It appears, as the establishment did not appear before the E.S.I, authorities, the E.S.I, authorities have made a formal inspection of the establishment and found that for the month of September 1989 and January 1990 it has employed 10 workers. Accordingly, an order under Section 45-A of the E.S.I...
Tag this Judgment!H.V. Thimmegowda and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3156; [2002(94)FLR928]; ILR2001KAR3683; 2001(4)KarLJ548
ORDER1. All these criminal petitions arise out of the similar orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hassan in C.C. Nos. 2512 to 2522 of 1992 dismissing the applications filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The Provident Fund Inspector, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation of Hassan Division filed complaints on 6-8-1991 for initiation of action under Section 14(1) and 14(1-A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the accused persons who are the Directors of M/s. Hemayathi Coffee Curing Works (Private) Limited, Hassan on account of the default in contributing to the Provident Fund of its employees as required under the Act and the scheme. The petitioners are accused 2, 4 and 5. It appears one of the accused viz., accused 6, G.M. Rajendra was found absconding. Therefore, the case against accused 6 came to be split up. When the matter was at ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›