Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR118
ORDERBopanna, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the two notifications issued by the Government of Karnataka under the provisions of the Karnataka Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1977 (for short the Act) as also the resultant action taken by the second respondent Factory through its Managing Director seeking to take possession of the distillery leased to them by the said respondent under the lease deed executed in their favour on 3-10-1979. The first notification, dated 4 11-1981. produced as Annexure-A in the Writ Petition, was made under Section 3 of the Act declaring the second respondent-Factory 'with its distillery' as a relief undertaking for a period of two years. The second notification bearing the same date was made under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act by which the State Government had directed that the operation of all contracts, assurances of property and agreements, to which the second respondent-Factory with its distillery was a party remained ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2673
ORDERVenkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal is by Hegde and Golay Limited ('Company'), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, (the 'Act') and is directed against the order dated 26-7-1985 made by Bopanna, J., allowing a Creditor's winding-up petition brought by the State Bank of India (the 'Bank') and ordering the winding-up of the Company on grounds that the Company is unable to pay its debts within the meaning of Section 433(e) of the Act and that it is also otherwise 'Just and Equitable' that the Company be wound-up.The Bank claimed that as on 31-3-1980 a sum of Rs. 2,93,62,036 09 (exclusive of interest accruing subsequent to 1-4-1980) stood due and owing by the Company and that the Company was in fact, and must also be deemed to be, unable to pay its debts ; and that in view of the several circumstances alleged by the Bank it was also, otherwise, just and equitable that the Company be wound-up.This creditor's winding-up petition which was the unfortunate culmination of a g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3595
Venkatachaliah, J.1. In this appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, ('Act') Escorts Ltd., the appellant, assails the order dated 23-9-1985 made in E.S.I, Application No. 13 of 1984 on the file of the Employees' Insurance Court, Bangalore, ('ESI Court' for short).Appellant initiated the proceedings before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the 'Act' questioning the determination made under Section 45A of the 'Act' demanding E.S.I. contributions from the appellant as 'Principal-employer' in respect of certain workmen employed by appellant's contractors engaged for the construction of appellant's factory-buildings.2. The material facts are these :Appellant has a factory at Yelahanka engaged in the manufacture of 'Pistons'. The said project was taken-up pursuant to a project report prepared in or about the year 1974. The execution of the civil works of the factory buildings and of their sanitary and electrical installations was entrusted to three separate Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2177
ORDERBopanna, J.1. The petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Government of Karnataka (Home Department) refusing to renew the four licenses held by him which were valid up to 31-12-1984. It is not in dispute that these licenses were granted to him to enable him to carry on business in the manufacture and sale of Fire Arms under the name and style of 'Dwaraka Arms Stores' situate at Sathyanarayanapet, Bellary. The State Government being the Renewal Authority under the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Act), the petitioner made an application for the renewal of these licenses in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. The State Government made an order on 13-12-1985 rejecting his application for renewal. This order was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 19681 of 1985 and this Court by its Order dated 16-7-1986 set aside the said order on the short ground that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before the said ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1991]189ITR99(KAR); [1991]189ITR99(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal), has referred these two cases under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), formulating as many as seven questions for our answer with a statement of the case. The questions referred are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the administration of the estate of the deceased is not complete and, therefore, the assessment has been rightly made on the executors under section 168(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the clear language used in section 168(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, one assessment made on the executors is sustainable in law ?' (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that both the instalment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1(1992)ACC58
D.P. Hiremath, J. 1. The appellant was the 1st plaintiff in original suit before the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore District in O.S. No. 583/1981 and the 2nd plaintiff was insurer whereas the present respondent was defendant No.1 and Assistant Engineer, Karnataka Electricity Board, Gadag was the 2nd defendant. The facts in brief are that as against the order placed by the 2nd defendant with the 2nd plaintiff N.G.E.F. Ltd. ('NGEF' for short hereafter) it manufactured a transformer for the use of the 2nd defendant at Gadag in Dharwar district. It was despatched with its necessary fittings and accessories to the address of the 2nd defendant from Baiyappanahalli railway siding in Bangalore District on 31.5.1972. A special type of wagon was provided by the Railways for transporting it on Rails, it was on 11.10.1972 that NGEF came to know that transformer has sustained damage during its from broad-gauge to meter-gauge at Guntakal and even 3000 litres of oil that the transformer was fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1991)99CTR(Kar)269; ILR1991KAR3414; [1992]194ITR584(KAR); [1992]194ITR584(Karn)
S. Mohan, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment of our learned brother Rajasekhara Murthy J., dated April 19, 1991, rendered in Writ Petition No. 6655 of 1991. 2. We will refer to the facts in Writ Appeal No. 1318 of 1991 : Appellant entered into an agreement on November 28, 1990, with the third respondent for sale of an immovable property known as Mohan Buildings situate at Nos. 775 to 809, Old Taluk Cutchery Road, Chickpet, Bangalore. Both the appellant and the third respondent, i.e., the transferor and the transferee, filed Form No. 37-I prescribed by the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), framed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with the appropriate authority on November 30, 1990. The appropriate authority, by exercising power under section 269UD(1) of the Act, passed an order on January 24, 1991, directing the purchase of the said immovable property by the Central Government and holding that the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3789; 1991(3)KarLJ609
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium metal and has a smeltor complex at Belgaum, It is alleged that in response to 'An Invitation to Investors in Industry' published by the Government of Karnataka in 1966, the petitioners set up a smeltor complex and an aluminium plant at Belgaum on the basis of the assurances given by the State Government in the said brochure. An agreement was entered into between the 1st petitioner, the State Government and the State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 26-3-1966 for supply of electric power at a fixed rate for the duration of the agreement. In the said agreement provision was made for supply of power at a fixed rate with electricity tax at stipulated rate for a period of 25 years with an option for renewal for a further period of 25 years. On the basis of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement, it is claimed by the 1st petitioner, that it set up the complex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3740
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. M.F.As. 593, 58 and 56 of 1986 are represented by one Counsel and the lands involved are Survey No. 118/4 B1, B2, B3 and B4 in all measuring 3 acres 18 guntas. In M.F.A. 896/85 the land involved is Survey No. 118/5A and 5B measuring 5 acres 32 guntas. There is no dispute that all these lands abut each other and are situated in the outskirts of Davanagere town. These lands were sought to be acquired under a Preliminary Notification dated 12th January 1978. The provisions of Section 17(1) was invoked and it seems the possession was taken on 21st April 1978. These lands were acquired for the purpose of putting up K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand and depot at Davanagere. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre on 17th May 1979. On reference the Civil Court has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre as per its common judgment dated 30th October 1984. Before proceeding further a few more basic facts may be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3652; 1992(4)KarLJ571
R. Ramakrishna, J. 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Dharward, shortly referred as 'KIADB' preferred the above Appeals against the enhancement of compensation of market value made by the Reference C.out.2. The lands are acquired for the Improvement of KIADB under a Preliminary Notification dated 30.10.1981 under Section 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1966 which is anologous to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, shortly 'Act'. The particulars of the lands acquired are as follows:SI.No.M.F.A.L.A.C.Block Nos.Area A. G.1.676/19899/871938-062.677/-10/-121/89-353.678/-7/-118/24-194.679/-8/-118/14-195.680/-11/-1287-006.6817-6/-118/35-183. There is no dispute that all these lands abut each other and are situated within the Municipal Corporation area of Dharwad of a Village Keiageri. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre vide his awards dated 22.08.1985, On Ref...
Tag this Judgment!