Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-01-1986
Desai, J.1. The appellant in Cr. A. No. 82/85 was the accused in Sessions Case No. 102/82 on the file of the VIIIth Additional City Sessions Judge, Bangalore. He was tried for offences punishable under Ss. 302, 307 and 309, IPC for committing the murders of Husnara Banu and Md. Anis both children of Mohammed Basha (P.W. 22) who is the brother-in-law of the accused by assaulting them with barber's razor (M.O. 1) and knife (M.O. 2) on 3-7-1982 at about 1-45 p.m. in the house of P.W. 22 bearing No. 72, P.V.R. Road, Jolly Mohalla, Bangalore, for attempting to commit murder of Mohammed Asfaq (P.W. 21) son of P.W. 22, by assaulting him with the said weapons on the said date and at about the said time and place and for attempting to commit suicide by causing injuries to himself with the said weapons at about the said time and place. 2. As the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges, P.Ws. 1 to 27 were examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 46 and M.Os. 1 to 20 were produced on behalf of the pros...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-03-1986
Reported in : 1986(9)ECC216; 1986(25)ELT38(Kar)
1. The two show-cause notices issued by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore on 21.7.1977 and 17.7.1979 are challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner, which is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The first petitioner is a manufacturer of electric bulbs, fluorescent tubes in its two factories - one in Calcutta and another in Bangalore. The goods manufactured by the petitioners are dutiable under Entry 32 of first schedule to the Central Excise Act. The products are sold to various wholesale dealers appointed at different places in the country. Supplies were made to the wholesale dealers after deducting a uniform 'discount' of 50% of the list price. 3. For the period commencing from 15.10.1973 upto 15.1.1974 the price list No. 1/74 to be effective from 15.1.1974 was approved by the department and assessments were finalised. The discount which was allowed to the dealers was disclosed as 50% of the list price. The price list filed upto 15.9.1975 on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-03-1986
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3399
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Though this petition is posted for orders, having regard to the fact that it relates to a no confidence motion moved and passed against the petitioner and also that it can be disposed of on a short point, it is taken up for final disposal by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2.1 The petitioner was elected as the President of the Town Municipal Council, Sadalga, Belgaum District. The case of the petitioner as pleaded in the petition is that she received the communication dated 14-10-1985, produced as Annexure - A from the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, requesting her to take necessary action as per the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') regarding the notice dated 25-9 1985 given by the Councillors to move motion of no confidence against the petitioner; that she came to know of the intention of the Councillors to move motion of no confidence only through the communication dated 14-10-1985 (Annexure-A) ; that s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-07-1986
Reported in : ILR1986KAR511; (1986)IILLJ15Kant
ORDERPuttaswamy, J. 1. At the time the petitioner entered Government service, he had given his date of birth as 6th December, 1927 and the same was entered in his service register. On 12th June, 1975 the petitioner made an application under S. 5(2) of the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before Government for altering his date of birth from 6th December, 1927 to 6th December, 1930. As required by the Act, the application made by the petitioner was referred to one of the Deputy Secretaries to Government in the Law Department who happens to hold the rank of a Civil Judge in the Karnataka Judicial Service for enquiry and report. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner placed his evidence in support of his case. On a consideration of the evidence placed before him, the Enquiry Officer by his report dated 16th August, 1982 (Annexure-A) held that the petitioner had not made out a case for alteration of his date of birth and adv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-09-1986
Reported in : [1986]61STC225(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. This appeal is by the assessee and is directed against the order No. SMP 20/83-84 dated 16th January, 1984, of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore ('Commissioner'), made under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 ('KST Act'). 2. M/s. Associated Mechanical Industries, Belgaum, the assessee-appellant, a partnership firm of partners inter alia engaged in selling 'GI' pipes is a registered dealer on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments), Belgaum (ACCT), under the KST Act and the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (CST Act). The assessee generally purchases GI pipes from a manufacture called Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited, Ahmedabad (GST Ltd.), which has its sales office at Bangalore City. The GST Ltd. is also a registered dealer on the file of the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment-I), Bangalore, under the KST Act and CST Act and on their sales to the assessee, it had paid sales ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-10-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Kant252; ILR1986KAR503
Rama Jois, J.1. These 5 Writ Appeals by the Karnataka State Electricity Board are against the order in W. P. Nos. 14734/1979 and connected petitions of the learned single Judge holding that the regulations of the Board requiring the consumers to make a security deposit of an amount equal to 3 months estimated power consumption charges or 3 months average bill whichever is higher (hereinafter referred to as the deposit) with the Board as invalid and issuing a direction to the Board not to collect an amount in excess of two months estimated power consumption charges or two months average bill whichever is higher, from the consumers and to refund if already collected.2. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the order of the single Judge. We consider that it is unnecessary to repeat all those facts. In the Writ Petitions, 'the respondents challenged the validity of Regulation 55 of the Electricity Supply Regulations framed under The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (the Act for sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Kant52; ILR1986KAR2878
ORDER1. In these petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dt. 2-7-1984 bearing No. DSA 54/J/CNW3630/DWD/84-85 (Annexure-A) and 19-71984 bearing No. DSA.83/J. CNW3630/DWD/84-85 (Annexure-B) passed by the 2nd respondent; and also the order D/- 19th Oct., 1984 passed by the first respondent in No.DCT.RGN.APLS.13 and 17/84-85, produced as Annexure-C.2.The petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. CNW/3630. It is a non-transport omni bus and taxed accordingly. Show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner under S. 33(l)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the' Act'), to show cause as to why the registration Certificate of the vehicle in question should not be suspended for carrying passengers on hire without a permit. The various dates on which the vehicle in question was used for conveying the passengers on hire and without a permit, and the routes on which the vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-20-1986
Reported in : [1990]67CompCas418(Kar)
K.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs (i) To issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order if the respondent in Restrictive Trade Practice Enquiry No.8 of 1982 on the petitioner's application dated September 20, 1982 made under regulation 66 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations 1974. (ii) To issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the notice bearing No.20(226) RTP/82 dated August 19, 1982, issued by the respondent etc. as para (i) of annexure - Q; in so far as it relates to : (a) alleged discrimination in supplies of fuel injection equipment etc., as para (i) of annexure -Q (b) paras (ii)(a), (b) and para (iv) of annexure - Q. (iii) To issue a writ of mandamus, restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the enquiry in Enquiry No.8 of 1982 relating to the petitioner company in so far as the same relates to paras (i), (ii)(a) (b) and (iv) of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-20-1986
Reported in : ILR1986KAR2844
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-(i) To issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order of the Respondent in Restrictive Trade practice Enquiry No. 8/1982 on the petitioner's application dated 20-9-1982 made under Regulation 66 of the MRTP Commission Regulation, 1974,(ii) To issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the notice bearing No. 20(226)-RTF/82 dated 19-8-1982 issued by the respondent, produced as Annexure-Q in so far as it relates to :(a) alleged discrimination in supplies of fuel injection equipment etc. as para (i) of Annexure-Q.(b) para (ii) (a), (b) and para (iv) of Annexure-Q(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus, restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the enquiry in the Enquiry No. 8/82 relating to the Petitioner-Company in so far as the same relates to paras (i), (ii) (a) and (b) and (iv) of the said notice dated 19-8-1982 (Annexure-Q).(iv) To grant such ot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-06-1986
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1216
ORDER1. The petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 182/83 on the file of the J.M.F.C. Navalgund, and he will be hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'. On 10-5-82 at Nargund the accused was found transporting and possessing 23 1/2 gunny bags of admixture Jayalaxmi (DCH. 32) cotton which is prohibited in Nargund area. So, the cotton supervisor, Nargund, seized the said cotton seeds under a mahazar and reported the seizure to the C.J.M. Dharwar on 12-5-1982. He sent one portion of the sample to the cotton breeder, Dharwad, as per the provisions of the Mysore Cotton Control Act 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for testing. The cotton breeder, Dharwar, after testing, reported that the seeds were admixture with Jayalaxmi (DCH. 32). Thereafter, the complainant obtained sanction from the Director of Agriculture to prosecute the accused. He received the sanction and authorisation dt. 24-2-83. Thereafter on 18-3-83 the complainant filed the complaint in the Court below against the ...
Tag this Judgment!