Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)149CTR(Kar)521
R.P. Sethi, C.J.Constitutional validity of sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, was challenged by the appellants-assesses in various writ petitions filed by them, which were dismissed by the learned single judge, vide the judgment impugned in these appeals.2. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the offending sections were penal in nature, without providing for any safeguards or even an opportunity of being heard, which violated the constitutional guarantees of the assessees. It was submitted that as the offending provisions were penal in character, it required that the assessees were entitled to be heard before they could be punished under the said provisions and as the opportunity of being heard has been denied, the offending sections were liable to be struck down as ultra vires. It was argued in the alternative that in case the sections are not declared unc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2078
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. By these petitions the petitioners are seeking for quashing the Notifications at Annexure-A dated 9th August, 1995 and Annexure-B dated 20th October, 1995. They are issued by virtue of the powers under Sections 3 and 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short the Act).2. Annexure-A proposes to specify certain areas to be smaller urban area of Bidar and the same shall be a City Municipal area of Bidar and calls upon those interested to fife objections to the proposal, it also describes the said smaller urban area as areas coming within the limits specified in Schedule-B to the Notification.3. By Annexure-B the Government of Karnataka specified the smaller urban area stating that objections have been invited by Notification dated 16.8,1995, and objections received in time have been duly examined. It is stated in the Notification that having regard to :(i) the population of such area is not less than fifty thousand and not exceeding three lakhs; (ii...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ603
1. Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to malignise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio- economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.2. The menace of corruption was found to have enormously increased by first and second world war conditions. The corruption, at th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)KarLJ116
Acts/Rules/Orders:Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Sections 8, 14, 18, 19, 32, 38-B, 65, 69, 70 and 71;Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1994;Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 - Rules 3, 4(2), 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 14(3);Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 6 and 7Provincial Insolvency Act, 1963;Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 226;Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976;Housing Act, 1957 - Section 105(1);Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 60(1) - Order 33, Rule 1;Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909;Presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920;Provincial Insolvency (Karnataka, Extension and Amendment) Act, 1962;Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 - Sections 4, 6, 7, 10, 28, 35, 36, 37 and 60Cases Referred:S.P. Gupta and Others v. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149;Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D 458;Reed Bowen and Company, (1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1317; 1999(2)KarLJ259; (1999)ILLJ1239Kant
ORDER1. All these petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutionality of the proviso to Section 1(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that it offends the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The constitutional objection adverted is common to all the writ petitions. All the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 1st of July, 1992 issued by the 2nd respondent-State of Karnataka vide Annexure-A making the provisions of the Act applicable to every establishment and every contractor, who employs less than 20 workmen on the ground that there is a transgression by the State of the limits laid down and it is the case whether the power exercised is excessive and unreasonable.2. To appreciate the grounds on which the contentions a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2000]246ITR750(KAR); [2000]246ITR750(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. In all these I. T. R. Cs. since the controversies are common, they are decided by this common order. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law : 2. In I. T. R. C. No. 4 of 1996, the following question of law has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'kist' amount payable to the Government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 3. In I. T. R. C. No. 5 of 1996, the following question of law has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the changed provisions in the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, especially the provisions of Section 24 of the said Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'kist' amount payable to the Government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of provisions of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001(6)KarLJ213
ORDER1. Union of India has filed this petition to challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1020 of 1999, dated 8-2-2001 wherein the Tribunal has quashed the appointment of Sri R.K. Raghavan, (respondent 7) as the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the CUD, at the instance of Sri C. Dinakar, IPS, respondent 1, herein on the ground that the petitioner had acted against the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vineet Narain and Another v Union of India and Others, regarding the procedure to be followed for the selection and appointment of Director of CBI.2. Facts.--The basic premise laid down by respondent 1 in the O.A. before the Tribunal is that both he and respondent 7 were appointed to the Indian Police Service (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPS') in the year 1963. On the date of appointment of Director of CBI on 31-12-1998 the inter se seniority positions of the first four o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2575; 2002(3)KarLJ101
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. These two petitions can be disposed off by a common order as common question is involved in both the cases. 2. In these petitions the petitioners seek to challenge the tender notification dated 8-6-2001 (Annexure-A) inviting tenders from persons to work as Coal Transportation Agency for movement of coal from Singarani Collieries, Western Coal Fields and Mahanadi Coal Fields to Raichur Thermal Power Station and the clarification dated 14-6-2001. 3. The brief facts in these cases are as follows.-Respondent 1-Government company issued a tender notification inviting tenders from reputed coal transport agencies for the purpose of awarding contract for a period of three years for the movement of coal from three collieries, viz., Singarani Collieries (SCCL), Western Coal Fields (WCL) and Mahanadi Coal Fields (MCL) to Raichur Thermal Power Station (RTFS) by all rail mode. As per the notification, the bidders have the option to apply for the contract for movement of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ300
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed by the State Bank of India, a commercial banking company established under the State Bank of India Act, essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner of Payments functioning under the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) and the orders passed by the Court of City Civil Judge, Bangalore, functioning as an Appellate Authority within the meaning of Section 23(7) of the Act. 2. The writ petitioner-Bank is common in both the petitions, though these petitions arise out of two different claim petitions which had been presented before the Commissioner as a claim under Section 20 of the Act in respect of two different sick textile undertakings. The Commissioner having entertained the claim in part and having disallowed a part of the claim in each of the claim applications, the petitioner was in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2004Kant158
M. F. Saldanha, J.1. These two appeals are directed against a common order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 25547 and 30905 of 1992. The facts of the case are within a very narrow compass insofar as it is the case of the present appellants who are the Cantonment Board, Belgaum that the Respondents 1, 2 and 3 who are the owners of a property situated at D. C. 178, Havelock Road, Belgaum had applied to the Board for carrying out of some repairs to the roof of the structure and that they were informed that no formal permission is required for such work but, it was also clarified to them that the height of the roof was not to be raised under the guise of repairs and furthermore, that no additions or alterations are to be undertaken. The applicants were put on notice of the fact that if unauthorised construction work is carried out, that they will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924. According to the Board, the owners resorted...
Tag this Judgment!