Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE22D DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO.830 OF2022(T-IT) CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NO.831 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.832 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.833 OF2022(T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.834 OF2022(T-IT) IN W.A.NO.830/2022 BETWEEN:1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(4), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11 ROOM No.322, 3RD FLOOR CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU 560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BALBIR SINGH THE THEN ASG; SRI. Y V RAVIRAJ - ADVOCATE) 2 AND: SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O SRI D P SHARMA AGED ABOUT45YEARS NO.328, TIPPU SULTHAN PALACE ROAD KALASIPALYAM BENGALURU 560 002. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI KIRAN S JAVALI SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SREEHARI KUTSA ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION4OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Kant100; AIR1970Mys100; (1970)1MysLJ462
Tukol, J.1. This Writ Petition raises a question of some significance to employees working in Co-operative Societies governed by the Mysore Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and the Mysore Cooperative Societies Rules, 1960.2. The petitioner has been a member of the Gandhi Bazar Consumers' Co-operative Society, Shimoga, since 1963; and was one of the nominated members on the Committee of Management which elected him as Secretary at its meeting held on 14-8-1963. He was one of the nominated members under Order No. 1912/66-67 issued by the Assistant Registrar on 3-10-1966. This order was followed by a communication dated 27-10-1966: from that very Officer intimating the petitioner that his nomination had been withdrawn as he was not eligible to serve as Director on the Committee of Management of the Society under the provisions of Rule 16 (1) (c) of the Mysore Co-operative Societies Rules. 1960 (hereinafter called the Rulesl. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on December ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1972CriLJ406
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. This petition is directed against the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Addl. First Class Magistrate, Manealore in C. C. No. 2239 of 1967. convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 111 (d) read with Section 135 of the Customs Act. 1962 (hereinafter referred to in the course of this order as 'the Act') and Rule 126-P (2) (ii) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules 1963. dealing with gold control (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' in the course of this order), and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each of the counts, and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1969 by the Sessions Judge. South Kanara.2. The prosecution case is that at about 12.30 p. m. on 11-1-1965. P. W.1 Nagaraj, a Sub-Inspector in Central Excise Department and working as such in Customs Special Preventive Branch at Mangalore. was on patrol duty at Hampanakatta bus stand in Mangalore town. He observed the petitioner Setting d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1974]96ITR169(KAR); [1974]96ITR169(Karn)
Venkataramiah, J.1. These 28 writ petitions are filed by the firm of M/s. M. Nagappa, building contractors, and the six partners who constitute the said firm. They relate to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, 19 67-68 and 1968-69. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), under the following circumstances : 2. The firm, M/s. Nagappa and its partners, had not been assessed to income-tax at any time prior to the assessment year 1965-66. The orders of assessment in respect of the years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 were passed by the Income-tax Officer in the year 1969. While passing the said orders of assessment, the Income-tax Officer levied interest at the prevailing rate under section 217(1) of the Act in respect of the advance tax which they had to pay according to the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by that part of the order of assessment, the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1975]99ITR32(KAR); [1975]99ITR32(Karn)
Venkataramiah, J.1. The petitioners in the above petitions are all registered firms who are assessed to income-tax under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Because a common question of law arises for consideration in all these petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W. Ps. Nos. 926, 927 and 928 of 1972 are filed by M/s. M. Nagappa and the relevant assessment years are 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1968-69. W. P. No. 3401/73 is filed by M/s. Southern Express Transport Co., and the relevant year of assessment is 1969-70. W. P. Nos. 3402 and 3403 of 1973 are filed by M/s. Mahadeswara Lorry Service against the orders of assessment passed in respect of assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. Being aggrieved by the amount of interest claimed under 139 of the Act and included in the relevant orders of assessment, the petitioners have filed these petitions. The concerned Income-tax Officer, the Union of India and Commissioner of Income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1980CriLJ165
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226(1)(a) of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of detention of the brother of the petitioner R. Sathyadass passed by the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (called shortly as 'the Act').2. The case involves the personal liberty of a citizen which is one of the cherished fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution which the Courts of this country have always jealously protected against the arbitrary invasion,3. The facts are these:The State Government by order dated 15th May, 1979 made an order as follows:Whereas the Government of Karnataka are satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri R. Satya Das, s/o late V. Rama Nair, No. 649, Jain Street, Mandya that with a view to preventing him from keeping smuggled goods, it is necessary to make the following order:Now,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1981Kant216
Rama Jois, J.1. In this batch of 22 writ petitions filed by the Forest Contractors, the following questions of law, arise for consideration:(i) Whether Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter refer-9 red to as 'the Act') inserted into it by the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) 'Act, 1976 with effect from 24-12-1975, which imposes a tax called forest development tax on the consideration paid for the forest produce disposed of by the State Government, is unconstitutional?(ii) Whether the tax imposed by Section 98A of the Act which came into force from 24-12-1975 is leviable on the balance of the amount of consideration due and paid after that date, in respect of the sale of forest produce concluded before 24-12-1975?2. M Section 93A was introduced into the Act by the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 promulgated by the Governor, in the first instance. Subsequently, the Ordinance was replaced by the Amendment Act 15 of 1:976. Section 98A reads as follows:-'98A. L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1981KAR751; [1982]49STC192(Kar)
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this batch of 22 writ petitions filed by the forest contractors, the following questions of law arise for consideration : '(i) Whether section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inserted into it by the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Act, 1976, with effect from 24th December, 1975, which imposes a tax called forest development tax on the consideration paid for the forest produce disposed of by the State Government, is unconstitutional (ii) Whether the tax imposed by section 98A of the Act which came into force from 24th December, 1975, is leviable on the balance of the amount of consideration due and paid after that date, in respect of the sale of forest produce concluded before 24th December, 1975 ?' 2. (i) Section 98A was introduced into the Act by the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, promulgated by the Governor, in the first instance. Subsequently, the Ordinance was replaced by Amendment Act 15 of 1976. Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1982KAR622; (1982)ILLJ268Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. Three important questions arise for consideration in these four writ petitions. They are : 1. Whether, (i) The Bharat Farth Movers Limited; (ii) The Hindustan Machine Tools Limited; (iii) The Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited, which are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1/1956) and are Government companies as defined in S. 617 of the said Act, fall within the meaning of the word 'State' as defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution of India 2. Whether (i) Rule 17.2 of The Bharat Earth Movers Limited Service Rules; (ii) Rule 20.1 of the Hindustan machine Tools (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules; (iii) Rule 2.21 of the Karnataka Agro-Industries Corporation Limited (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules; and (iv) Regulation 25(2) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Rules' O providing for termination of service of its permanent employees, by a simple notice, at any time,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1986]60CompCas341(Kar); ILR1985KAR572; 1985(1)KarLJ278
1. This civil petition preferred by a claimant in a fatal accident action raises the question whether the Tribunal constituted by the State Government under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is a 'court' subordinate to the High Court so as to attract the general power of transfer under section 24, Civil Procedure Code. By the notification under section 110, the 'District Judge' was constituted as the Tribunal. Judicial opinion in the High Courts on the point whether the 'District Judge' function as 'persona designation' or functions as 'court' is not uniform. The petition is before us on its reference to a Divisions Bench by Kudoor J. 2. The petitioner is the wife of a certain C. S. Srikantaiah who died on July 9, 1980, in motor accident. She filed MVC No. 51 of 1981 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga, claiming compensation. 3. By the present petition, she seeks to invoke the general power of transfer of the High Court under section 24, Civil Proced...
Tag this Judgment!