Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1989)80CTR(Kar)15; ILR1990KAR404; [1989]180ITR585(KAR); [1989]180ITR585(Karn)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In these four petitions presented by the same person praying for quashing the order passed by the Settlement Commission (Income-tax and Wealth-tax) constituted under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the following two questions of law arise for consideration : '(1) Whether a person who approaches the Income-tax Settlement Commission constituted under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a full and final settlement of his case is entitled to question the legality of its decision in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what is the scope for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India against a decision of the Settlement Commission ?' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was a regular assessee being assessed to income-tax the provision of the Act. He was the managing director of Internation Inst...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant5; ILR1989KAR2425
ORDERPrem Chand Jain, C.J. 1. Sri S. R.Bommai and others have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and Constitutional validity of the Presidential proclamation dated 21-4-1989 (Annexure L).2. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case (except the allegations of mala fides made against respondent 3 the Governor, which were not pressed), may be noticed :-Sri S. R. Bommai, the first petitioner, was functioning as the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, and the other three petitioners were members in his Council of Ministers on the date of the impugned proclamation. Before the dissolution of the State Assembly, when Janata Party had formed the Government, the party wise strength of members in the Assembly was as follows: (a) Janatha 139 (b) Congress 66 (c) C.P.M. 2 (d) C.P.I. 4 (e) B.J.P. 2 (f) Independents 8 (g) M.E.S. 3 (h) Nominated 1 __________ Total 225 __________It is averred t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR820
1. The petitioner, M/s. Ranganatha Associates, a firm of partners, is the purchaser of the exclusive privilege of retail vend of arrack in the Bangalore Urban District for the year commencing from the 1st July, 1987. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the condition requiring him to pay sales tax on the excise duty on arrack and the bottling charges of arrack. The petitioner also assails the constitutionality of the Forty-sixth Amendment. The vires of section 5(3-D) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is also challenged. 2. Under the Karnataka Excise (Lease of Rights of Retail Vend of Liquor) Rules, 1969, arrack is required to be supplied to the petitioner and, in turn, sold in retail by him, in sealed bottles. Under rule 2 of the Karnataka (Excise Duty) Rules, 1958 (referred as 'the Rules' hereinafter), excise duty is payable on arrack when arrack is issued from any distillery, ware-house or place of storage. The petitioner, before obtain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR3446; 1982(2)KarLJ453
Ramachandriah, J. 1. These three appeals are filed by defendants-3, 1 and 2 respectively in O.S. 10600/1989 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore City, against the Judgment and decree dated 19-4-1990 decreeing the suit declaring that the plaintiff's nomination paper to the Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. for the election of the office of Stewards held on 27-9-1989 had been improperly rejected by the Management of the Bangalore Turf Club Ltd., although his nomination was valid and proper; directing the club to accept the nomination paper of the plaintiff for the post of Stewards and to conduct fresh election in respect of the same by issuing fresh calendar of events and further declaring that the election of defendants-2 to 4 as Stewards for a period of two years from 27-9-1989 in the election held on that date is illegal and unsustainable in law and consequently, restraining defendants-2 to 4 by means of a perpetual injunction from acting, functioning or pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1992]198ITR426(KAR); [1992]198ITR426(Karn); 1991(2)KarLJ495
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these writ petitions, certain notices under section 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short), issued by the respondent in respect of the assessment years relatable to the periods prior to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1982, are primarily challenged. The petitioners contend that the power of the Joint Commissioner to take any action to revise an order of assessment cannot be exercised in respect of any assessment year which pertains to a period prior to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1982, because the Joint Commissioner was empowered to act under section 35 only by virtue of the Karnataka Act 14 of 1983 (for short 'the earlier Amendment Act'). By Karnataka Act 23 of 1985, this power of the Joint Commissioner is alleged to have been enlarged by empowering him to revise the assessment orders for earlier periods and this purported enlargement is attacked as conflicting with section 2 of the earlier Amendmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR1447; 1992(3)KarLJ137
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. As vital questions of National importance concerning the necessity of always maintaining the democratic character of Local Self Governments arise for consideration in this Writ Petition presented by 15 citizens/voters, who are residing in various villages situate in different Districts of the State aggrieved by the indefinite postponement of election to all the Zilla Parishads in the State, inter alia, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to hold elections to those bodies in accordance with the Legislative mandate incorporated in the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short), the same has been referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act.2. The brief facts, circumstances and statutory provisions, which have given rise to the petition, are these:-(i) The Act was enacted by the State Legislature, in exercise of its legislative power under Articles 24...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1993Kant121; 1992(2)KarLJ369
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The State Government has nullified the order of this Court in the order impugned in these petitions, is the most extraordinary feature disclosed in this case, in that, in the impugned order the State Government has directed that several orders made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District under S. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act according permission for conversion of 414 acres of agricultural land for non-agricultural use, to wit, for establishing a housing colony on the banks of Arkavati River near Thippagondanahalli Water Reservoir, one of the sources of supply of drinking water to the City of Bangalore, which were quashed by this Court, in Writ Petitions Nos. 19919 to 19954 and 21172 to 21177/1982 presented by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, which order was confirmed in Writ Appeals Nos. 744 to 785 of 1987, shall continue.2. The above ground urged by the petitioners against the impugned order caused consternation to us, as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR454
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. The Question of Law involved in all these Petitions are common. As such all the Petitions are clubbed together and a common Order is passed.2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these Petitions are as follows:The petitioners in all these Petitions either were or are working as Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians or Librarians in the University of Mysore, Mysore, (hereinafter referred to as the University). The University apart from other subjects is also imparting education in Library Science under the auspices of Department of Library Science which has got Professors, Readers and Lecturers. The University has also got a Library Section and its staff consists of Library Assistants, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians and Librarian. The Librarian is the Head of the Section.Petitioners are all officers of Library Section. As on the date of filing the petitions the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 12349 of 1984 and 6968 of 1988 were working as Deputy Lib...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR1252; 1993(1)KarLJ639
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. In these Writ Petitions the petitioners at the time of filing the Writ Petitions were working as Trained Graduate Teachers, Post Graduate Teachers and Primary Teachers in the 1st respondent's institutions which are run by the Central Board of School Education an autonomous body controlled by the Union of India. They sought for the following reliefs:'Wherefore the petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (i) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus of any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to regularise the services of petitioners from the date of their initial appointments, with all consequential benefits; (ii) direct the respondents to pay salary and allowances on par with teachers appointed on regular basis from the date of their initial appointments so long they continue their service; (iii) grant such other further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.' The case of the petitioners is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR2812; 1994(3)KarLJ628
S.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. These Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions project a common question centering-round the powers of the authorities functioning under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in so far as they seek to compound the offences under Section 127-B of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 analogous to Section 200 of the 1988 Act, They further project a question as to under what circumstances the concerned motor vehicles plying under tourist vehicle permits issued under the aforesaid Acts can be seized and detained by those authorities in exercise of their powers under Section 129-B of the 1939 Act or under Section 207 of the 1988 Act. Writ Appeals 1132-1183 of 1993 are taken out by the State of Karnataka being aggrieved by the common Judgment rendered by Swami, J., (as he then was) in number of Writ Petitions. This Judgment of Swami, J., in case of MOHAMMED ILLYAS v. UNION OF INDIA is reported in : ILR1991KAR2804 . W.A.Nos. 1083-1127 of 1992 challenge another common...
Tag this Judgment!