Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-02-1996
Reported in : ILR1996KAR2672; 1996(5)KarLJ491
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding the Circulars dated 22-7-1978 - Annexure-D and 5-8-1978 - Annexure- E, to be illegal, null and void as well as to be without any authority of law.The Petitioner has further sought the relief for issue of writ of mandamus declaring the Petitioner to be belonging to the Schedule Caste being Beda Jangama, a sub-caste in Veerashaiva religion and for a direction to respondents to drop all further proceedings initiated as per Annexure-A to this Writ Petition as well as for issue of direction to respondents to forbear from holding a Departmental criminal proceedings, on the basis of Annexures D & E.2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner claims to be belonging to Beda Jangama Caste which is a sub-caste of Veerashaivas. Further the case of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-08-1996
Reported in : [2000]118STC409(Kar)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common order made by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants, challenging certain action taken by the respondents in respect of incentives and concessions, vide Government Order No. CI 121 SPL 82 dated October 30, 1982. This notification grants package of incentives and concessions for a period of five years from date of commencement of commercial production to all new industries with effect from November 1, 1982, excluding those industries listed in the appendix thereunder. The appellants do not fall in category of those industries, listed in the appendix. They are engaged in cutting and polishing of granite stones. The said order has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Subsequently, another notification was issued by the Government on March 31, 1983, granting exemption from payment of taxes on the turnover of the goods manuf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-10-1996
Reported in : ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-11-1996
Reported in : ILR1996KAR2199; [1997]225ITR60(KAR); [1997]225ITR60(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ36
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. Two questions have been referred for our opinion in this reference arising under s. 256(1) of the IT Act and the said questions are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the guarantee commission paid by the assessee is an admissible revenue expenditure (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the screening plant and electrical installations used in mining ?' 2. In respect of this very assessee in another reference, we have answered an identical question as has been referred to us as Question No. 1 in ITRC No. 162/1993, disposed of on 10th Jan., 1996 [reported as CIT vs. Gogte Minerals. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the question referred to us in this case also similarly. 3. Argument in regard to the second question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-18-1996
Reported in : ILR1996KAR2655; 1996(6)KarLJ384
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. It is now well settled law that a public authority particularly in its dealings with its employees is required to act fairly but the time has come to amplify that requirement by specifically adding on one more dimension namely the duty to act humanely. Normally, this requirement would have been considered to be implicit in the former but experience has shown that Institutions often act with a degree of rigidity and severity by insisting on technical and strict compliance with the rules which is construed as fair treatment in so far as the letter of the law is observed but this unfortunately falls short of the requirement in so far as when dealing with human beings, the special factors and circumstances, many of which are situational and which are inter-twined with the facts of the case, cannot either be dissected or separated in the process of decision making. This very important aspect has been directly thrown up in the present case which involves a few other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-19-1996
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1747; ILR1996KAR685; 1996(2)KarLJ137
ORDER1. These contempt proceedings arise out of the suo motu action taken by this Court, initiating Criminal Contempt Proceedings against the accused, by the order dated 26-10-1994 in I.A. II in Writ Appeal No. 2928/1991. While directing the posting of I.A. II for orders after the disposal of the Contempt Proceedings, this Court directed initiation of Criminal Contempt Proceedings against the appellant. The Court was of the view that the statement of facts contained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the application in I.A. II prima facie amounts to Contempt of Court. The Government Advocate was directed to apppear, assist and conduct the proceedings against the accused. The accused was directed to show cause as to why Criminal Contempt Proceedings should not be initiated. He was granted two weeks time for filing his reply. 2. The accused filed his reply and sought for adjourning the proceedings to some date in December, 1994. The proceedings were adjourned to 21-11-1994 by the order dated 7-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-19-1996
Reported in : ILR1996KAR3499; 1996(6)KarLJ139
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal arising out and from Judgment and decree dated September 23rd 1985, delivered by the District Judge, Tumkur (Sri. P.S. Gundawade), allowing the defendants' First Regular Civil Appeal - R.A.No.4/1974, from the Judgment and decree dated 16.3.1974, delivered by Sri, K.P. Kempegowda, Additional Civil Judge, in Original R.A.No. 32/71, setting aside the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissing the plaintiff - appellant's Original Suit - No. O.S. 32/71, at the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Tumkur.2. The plaintiff - appellant filed the suit for decree for declaration declaring that the plaintiff 4s entitled to exercise the right of preemption, i.e., right of preferential acquisition of suit property under Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act, i.e., Act No. 30 of 56, in respect of one half share in the suit schedule properties and for further direction to defendant No. 2, that is, Respondent No. 2, to deliver the possession...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-23-1996
Reported in : ILR1996KAR833; 1996(1)KarLJ498
ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J.1.The Second Defendant is the Revision Petitioner. The first respondent - plaintiff filed O.S.No. 122/92 on the file of the Civil Judge's Court, Bangalore, originally against two defendants for declaration that the Sale Deed dated 16.2.1992 executed by the first defendant in favour Of the plaintiff-Company is valid and binding on her and for permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the schedule property to anybody else and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The second defendant is impleaded by making allegations against her that she is misusing her position as Private Secretary of the defendant.2. The first defendant denied execution of the document and also pleaded that the plaintiff has played fraud and no consideration has passed. During the pendency of the Suit, the third defendant got himself impleaded and f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1996
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1940; ILR1996KAR1101; 1996(2)KarLJ229
1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kodagu District, Madikeri acquitting the accused persons of the charges u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 & 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case was that on 31-5-1987 at about 4 p.m. when PW-1 was going in Nagarahole Forest for bringing firewood, the two accused persons shared common intention of murdering PW-1 Javara and that in pursuance of that common intention A-1 fired a shot from M.O. 1 - gun causing grievous injury to PW-1 and that A-1 had no license to possess the gun. 3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. The gist of the prosecution case as disclosed in the evidence is as hereunder : On 31-5-1987 at about 4 p.m. PW-1 went inside Nagarahole forest to bring firewood. A-1 & A-2 were in the forest and A-1 who was armed with a gun asked PW-1 to stop. But PW-1 started running. Then A-1 fired from the gun. PW-1 sustained injuries on his back and other parts of the body. PW-1 ran t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-31-1996
Reported in : [2000]119STC411(Kar)
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These petitions are directed against a common order made by the Tribunal in relation to assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The petitioner is a retail dealer. He declared total and taxable turnover as : 1987-88 1988-89 Rs. 10,31,614.17 Rs. 3,27,695.29Rs. 1,31,433 Rs. 43,415 2. The assessing officer rejected the declared turnovers on the basis that classified sales account had not been properly maintained and determined the turnovers as under : 1987-88 1988-89 Rs. 10,43,402 Rs. 3,29,500Rs. 1,52,682 Rs. 47,350 3. Aggrieved by that assessment order the petitioner preferred appeals before the appellate authority unsuccessfully and the matter was carried on to the Tribunal and the Tribunal also having dismissed the same, the petitioner has preferred these petitions. 4. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are that : (1) The assessing authority was not justified in rejecting the account books and other material furnished by the petitioner pursuan...
Tag this Judgment!