Karnataka Court April 2007 Judgments

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Chelpark Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(119)ECC390; 2007LC390(Karnataka); 2007(216)ELT364(Kar)

R. Gururajan and Anand Byrareddy , J.J1. State is before us aggrieved by the order of the tribunal in the case on hand. Respondent is covered by the Central Excise Laws. It claimed duty exemption on Synthetic Adhesives under the self removal procedure. It failed to discharge the duty on the synthetic adhesives cleared during the period from 1-3-1998 to 30-7-1998 without payment of duty. The assessee also did not pay 8% of the price of the exempted goods. No reasons were assigned with regard to non-payment of duty. In these circumstances, notice was issued demanding a sum of Rs. 1,80,341/- by the department. The State Government also claimed a demand of Rs. 44,788/- being 8% of the value of clearance of exempted products in the case on hand. Thereafter, duty was made over. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the payment in terms of the order. However, he levied penalty under Section 11-C of the Act read with Rule 172 of the Central Excise Rules. Assessee aggrieved by the imposition of pena...

The Malnad Areca Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. and ors. Vs. Unio ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3797

ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners have sought for issuance of an appropriate writ or orders striking down the impugned amendment to Rule 42 zzz(6) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, as being unconstitutional, illegal, without jurisdiction and authority of law, as the same is violative of the fundamental rights and other legal rights of the petitioners, violative of principles of natural justice and procedural safeguards and has not been founded on valid and germane materials, ultra vires the provisions of the Act, suffers from the excessive delegation and such other reliefs.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate and also the Central Government Standing Counsel.3. According to the petitioners, amendment inserted on pan bags carrying supari with a warning to the effect 'chewing of supari is injurious to health' is arbitrary, irrational and without any basis. The insertion of this amendment und...

Sri. Ryaz Ahmed S/O. Late D. Jani Sait, Vs. Lalith Kumar Chopra Builde ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR2489; 2007(4)KCCRSN228; 2007(4)AIRKarR132; AIR2007NOC1610

ORDERH.N. Nagamohan Das, J.1. This writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 27.07.2006 in O.S. No. 9683/1997 passed by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore city rejecting I.A. No. V filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement.2. The parties are referred to their status before the trial Court.3. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 9683/1997 against the defendants for a decree as under:A. Declare that the defendants or any of them have no manner of right to interfere with the lawful and peaceful enjoyment of the Schedule property in any manner; andB. Grant a Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, servants and agents whosoever from in any manner interfering with either the lawful possession and enjoyment of the ongoing construction thereon of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever;C. Grant costs and such other reliefs as may be deemed fit and appropriate to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.4. The defen...

Sri Syed Ameerjan S/O Sri Syed Ahmed Saheb Vs. the Secretary, Karnatak ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(1)KarLJ1282007(2)Kar1979; 2007(3)KCCR1715; 2007(3)AIRKarR459.

ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner, a transferee of a stage carriage permit bearing No. 15/65-66 authorised to operate on an Inter-State route from Chikkaballapura to Hindupura and back performing four single trips per day, aggrieved by the order dated 17-03-2007 in R.P. No. 644/2006 Annexure-'D' of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, has preferred this Writ petition.2. Sri. B.R. Sundararaja Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner advances the following contentions:The grant of additional trips and additional vehicles in respect of the permit of a saved operator under the Kolar Pocket scheme was held to be permissible by two decisions of a Full Bench of this Court and three decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the controversy brought about by the opinions rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Chennai High Court in that regard, is a matter pending before a constitutional bench of the Apex Court According to the learned Counsel, the constitutional be...

K.S. Venkatesh S/O K. Swamy Rao Vs. N.G. Lakshminarayana S/O N. Govind ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR2894; 2008(2)KarLJ342; 2007(3)KCCR1881; 2007(5)AIRKarR292; AIR2007NOC2282

N. Kumar, J.1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against a concurrentfinding recorded by the Courts below that the suit schedule property is not a joint finally property. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to challenge a compromise decree passed by the High Court.2. The facts as set out in the plaint are as under:The land to bearing Sy. Nos. 57, 63 and 2 of Narasipura Village, Anandapura Hobli, Sagar Taluk, measuring 1 acre 3 guntas, 29 guntas and 11 gundas was purchased by the second defendant, the plaintiffs father under a registered sale deed dated 2.11.1955 for valuable consideration out of the joint family funds, The said sale deed was executed by Sri Goviudappa Hegde and his sons N.G.Mahabalagiri and the first defendant. The first defendant was a minor running 16 years on the date of the sale. The said sale dead was executed for the benefit of the family. At the time of purchasing the said lands, it was in hopeless condition and the vendors of the second defendant could mot ...

The Director Govt. Central Press Industrial Estate Vs. the President I ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(6)KarLJ112; ILR200(4)Kar4159; 2007(4)AIRKar660.

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 14.06.2006 in I.D.No. 63/05 on the fife of Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. The respondent-Union sought for reference of a dispute to the Industrial Tribunal and the Government, by order dated 31.12.1995 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal.2. The case of the respondent is that, in the establishment of the petitioner, there are about more than 2500 employees, some employees are ministerial employees and some are industrial employees. Both the categories of employees are discharging similar, identical work in their respective cadre. Majority of the ministerial employees of the petitioner-establishment are members of the respondent-Union. Respondent is a registered Union. They made a demand for certain benefits by a representation dated 30.01.1967 and continued their agitation by making several representations i.e., demanding equal wage, equal treatment for the persons who are placed in the same po...

Director, Government Central Press Vs. President, Indian Employees' Un ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2007(115)FLR992]; (2008)ILLJ420Kant

ORDERSubhash B. Adi, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated June 14, 2006 in I.D. No. 63/2005 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. The respondent-Union sought for reference of a dispute to the Industrial Tribunal and the Government, by order dated December 21, 1995 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal.2. The case of the respondent is that, in the establishment of the petitioner, there are about more than 2,500 employees, some employees are ministerial employees and some are industrial employees. Both the categories of employees are discharging similar, identical work in their respective cadre. Majority of the, ministerial employees of the petitioner establishment are members of the respondent-Union. Respondent is a registered Union. They made a demand for certain benefits by a representation dated January 30, 1987 and continued their agitation by making several representations, i.e., demanding equal wage, equal treatment for the persons who are...

B.V. Seetharama and anr. Vs. State by Inspector General of Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3503

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioners by filing this petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have sought for the following reliefs. - It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this criminal petition and direct enlargement of the petitioners on bail in case they are arrested in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 153B and 295A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which will be registered based upon newspapers publications published in Kannada Daily 'Karavali Ale', 'Sanje Ale' and 'Kannada Janataranga' in the interest of justice.2. Petitioner 1 is the Chairman and Director and petitioner 2 is the Managing Director of Kannada Daily Newspapers 'Karavali Ale', 'Sanje Ale' and 'Kannada Janataranga'. On 2-2-2007, an article is published in the above newspapers regarding Jain Religion and some Jain Saints. In that regard two complaints are lodged against the petitioners one by Rajavarma Ballal which is registered...

S.S. Sohrab and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case the petitioners have sought for quashing the auction notices bearing Nos. Ref: ADV/1706/MNG, dated 2-1-2007; Ref: ADV/1707/MNG, dated 3-1-2007; Ref: ADV/1704/MNG, dated 4-1-2007 and Ref: ADV/1705/MNG, dated 5-1-2007 issued by the first respondent (Annexures-J1 to J4) and for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to release the buses belonging to the petitioners, detailed in the schedule to the writ petition in the condition in which they were seized.2. Petitioners contend that the Central Government enacted an Act called 'Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950' permitting each and every State within the Union of India to constitute a Corporation family to cater to the needs of travelling public. In furtherance of the object of the aforesaid Act the State Government constituted the Transport Department and thereafter on reorganisation of the State in the year 1956 it came to be called as Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) and ...

Smt. Revathi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Kar)97; [2007]294ITR117(KAR); [2007]294ITR117(Karn)

R. Gururajan, J.1. Assesses is before us in this reference. According to the facts of the case, the assessee is an individual deriving income from 13 AOPs as a member. For the assessment year 1983-84, the appellant derived Rs. 60,853/- as share from 13 AOPs. She was having 1/3rd share in all these AOPs. The AOPs were beneficiaries of M/s. Chengamma Family Foundations, which is a private specific trust, 99% of the total income of the Associations of persons was shared equally among the members and the balance 1% remains discretionary. Each of the thirteen Association of persons received about Rs. 14,044/- as share of beneficiary interest from Chengamma Family Foundations. The assessee claimed rebate Under Section 86(V) of the Income Tax Act. The ITO allowed rebate from AOP from which income has levied and paid. Aggrieved by the order, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Appeals. The Commissioner of Appeals accepted the order of ITO. Matter was taken before the Tribunal. The T...