Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1986Kant21; ILR1985KAR2477
Puttaswamy, J. 1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases have been posted before us for disposal.2. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. All the petitioners hold licences called 'Touring Cinema Licences' issued in their favour by the concerned District Magistrates of the Districts ('DMs') presently under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) ('the Act') and the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 ('the Rules') for exhibiting films at the places detailed in their respective licences. The licences have been re-granted from time to time and were due for re-grant sometime before 3-5-1984 or immediately thereafter as is the case.4. After a series of amendments to the Rules, their periodical and endless challenges before this Court, which so far regretfully ended up only in abortive results, to which aspect I will have occasion to refer to it in so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1985)48CTR(Kar)88; ILR1985KAR1543; [1985]155ITR81(KAR); [1985]155ITR81(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy J.), these cases were posted before us for disposal. 2. As the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of s. 44AB of the I.T. Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), we propose to dispose of these petitions by this order. 3. There are two groups of petitioners. The first group, who are the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 1585 to 1603 and Nos. 3775 to 3788 of 1985 are professionals who are authorised by law and s. 288 of the Act in particular to appear, act and plead for the assessees before all the authorities under the Act. We will hereafter refer to them as ITPs. 4. The ITPs consist of advocates who are on the rolls of one or the other Bar Council in the country, whose enrolment, conduct and other related matters are regulated by the Advocates Act of 1961 (Central Act No. 25 of 1961). A number of advocates, some of whom are petitioners before us, besides possessing a qua...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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
Reported in : ILR1987KAR1369
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In W.P. 1602 86 the petitioner No. 1 is a Municipal Council and petitioner No. 2 claims to be an Ex-Municipal Councillor. In W.P. 1879/86 the petitioner claims to be a resident of Koppa Town in Chickmagalur Dist. The petitioner in W.P. 2280/86 are citizens of India and they also claim to be rate-payers of Town Municipalities of Krishnarajapet and Bellur in Mandya Dist.2. In W.P. 1602/86 there is an application filed by the petitioners seeking an amendment to the Writ Petition. By the amendment the petitioners want to add a prayer regarding the validity of Section 128 of Karnataka Act No. 20 of 1985 as amended by Karnataka Ordinance No. 19 of 1985 and also for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents not to implement the notifications issued pursuant thereto.3. As in all these petitions the validity of Section 126 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayats Samithis, Mandal Panchayats & Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983(Karnataka Act 20 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1986)53CTR(Kar)128; [1986]160ITR50(KAR); [1986]160ITR50(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the petitioners in all these cases have challenged certain provision of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), on grounds that are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. The first petitioner in each of Writ Petitions Nos. 7399, 8785 of 1984, 1237, 1238, 1269 and 1623 of 1985, who are the principal petitioners, are either public or private limited companies incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in carrying on one or the other businesses detailed in their respective writ petitions. The second petitioner in each of them are either directors or shareholders of the respective companies, who have joined to avoid technical objections based on the challenge to article 19 of the Constitution. We will, therefore, treat the first petitioner in each of them as the petitioner. The other petitioners in all other cases are partnership firms engaged in carrying on one or the other businesses detailed in their respective petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR169
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In Writ Petitions 42622 of 1982, 42149 to 42152 of 1982; and 11983/83, Final Gradation List of Assistants in the Karnataka Government Secretariat published as on 1-1-1980, is challenged.2. However, in W.P. 11983/83, the petitioners have sought for amendment of the petition, so as to have the Final Gradation List of the aforesaid Assistants prepared as on 1-1-1986 quashed The amendment sought for by them has been allowed and necessary parties have also been impleaded. Sri G.S Visweswara, learned Counsel for petitioners in W.Ps. 14089 & 14090 of 1986 in which the final gradation list of the aforesaid Assistants published as an 1-1-1986 is challenged, appears for the additional respondents impleaded in W.P. 11983 of 1983, The petitioners in W. Ps, 14089 & 14090 of 1986 and 11983/83 belong to the category of Direct Recruits; whereas the petitioners in other Writ Petitions belong to the category of promotees.3. As the questions involved in W. Ps. 14089 & 14090 of 1986...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR1348
ORDERBopanna, J.1. These petitions raise a question of considerable importance to the proper working of the Mandal Panchayats constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluka Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (in short called as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder.2. Various contentions have been taken by the petitioners in these petitions challenging the validity of the nominations made by the Zilla Parishads under the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Act. They have questioned not only the validity of the nominations but also the eligibility of the candidates who were nominated oh the ground that those candidates do not satisfy the criteria of backwardness as defined in the Act.3. In the course of the arguments by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it was observed by this Court that a preliminary issue touching the jurisdiction of the Adhyaksha of the Zilla Parishads to make nominations under Section 5(3) of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR1005
ORDERBopanna, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged by the petitioners on various grounds. Principally their challenge is premised on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, Additionally they have submitted that the Act offends the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore should be declared as void. Briefly stated, their arguments are that in the absence of any party system in the Constitution, the Act is violative of the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India; that the defection of an individual is sought to be penalised whereas the defection of a group of individuals is legalised and thereby there has been discrimination which violates their rights, protected under Article 14 of the Constitution; that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act should be read as a wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR2817; 1988(2)KarLJ455
Shyamasundar, J.1. This appeal is from an order made by the 15th City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on I.As. 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 4369 of 1986, on the 31st of January 1987. By the aforesaid order the learned Judge, affirmed the ad interim injunction granted to the plaintiff in the suit, restraining in particular the 1st defendant from utilising for its own purpose the suit property being a vacant land measuring 51 acres in extent, situate in the City of Bangalore, during the pendency of the suit.2. It would appear, the 1st defendant in the suit being the Life Insurance Corporation of India, (to be shortly called the 'Corporation') who is admittedly the owner of the suit plot had arranged for laying a foundation stone on the 26th of September, 1986 signifying the commencement of a project for constructing 122 houses on the suit plot for the benefit of the policy holders of the Corporation, accredited to the Bangalore Division.3. By an ad interim injunction the Court stopped any steps being tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR2121; 1989(1)KarLJ294
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In the first Writ Petition presented by a Member of the Zilla Parishad, Chickmagalur, the following important question of law arises for consideration;Whether a person who is not an elected member of the Zilla Parishad in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, but who being a member of the State Legislative Assembly or State Legislative Council or a Member of Parliament or a President of District Central Cooperative Bank, is given the right to participate in the proceedings/meetings of a Zilla Parishad under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 139, can be regarded as a member of the Local Authority for the purpose of Article 171(3)(a) of the Constitution of India, entitled to vote in the concerned Local Authorities Constituency, in the election to the Karnataka State Legislative Council?In the second Writ Petition presented by the General...
Tag this Judgment!