Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)2MysLJ385; [1968]22STC46(Kar)
ORDERNarayana Pai, J. 1. Of the writ petitions mentioned above, all the petitions of 1965 and petitions Nos. 1256 to 1258 and 2121 to 2127 of 1966 have been admitted and notice served on the respondent. The respondent is represented by the learned Government Pleader. 2. The remaining petitions of 1966, namely, Nos. 2724 and 2727 to 2733 are awaiting admission. 3. The principal contention on behalf of the petitioners in all these cases is that the turnover subjected to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act could not have been rightly so subjected in view of the clear declaration of the law in three subsequent decisions of this Court reported in Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty & Sons v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 583), Mysore Silk House v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 597) and Karnatak Coffee Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Davangere ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 658), and the rulings of the Supreme Court upon appeal in those cases reported in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR1804; [2005]142STC229(Kar)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' for short), carrying on business, inter alia, in buying and selling damaged foodgrains (wheat and rice) from food corporation of India.2. Food Corporation of India ('FCI' for short)- first respondent herein, periodically issues tender notices for disposal of damaged food grains specifying the purpose for which such damaged foodgrains can be used. The four specified purposes are : (1) fit for cattle/ poultry feed; (2) fit for industrial use as well as for use as manure; (3) fit for use as manure only; and (4) fit for manufacture of inedible starch only. Clause (L) (i) of the general terms and conditions of sale of damaged foodgrains provides thus:'It is absolutely necessary that the buyer of any particular category of stock shall use the same only for the purpose indicated and shall make no attempt whatsoever for adulteration or misuse of the stocks. The Food Corporation of India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1362; ILR2002KAR1427; 2002(2)KarLJ548
Mohamed Anwar, J.1. Brijesh Singh, petitioner in Cr. P. No. 2571 of 2001, is A-l in Crime No. 12 of 2001 of Ulsoorgate Women's Police Station booked against him and his four relatives for the offences under Section 498-A read with Section 109, under Section 506 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. on the complaint of his wife Smt. Sharmila. lodged with the police on 11-6-2001. He has filed the petition under Section 439(l)(b) of the Cr. P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 26-7-2001 in Cr. R.P. No. 218 of 2001 passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.2. Petitioner in Cr. P. No. 2639 of 2001 is the said Smt. Sharmila Brijesh Singh, wife of petitioner in Cr. P. No. 2571 of 2001. She has filed her petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. against the State by Ulsoorgate Police, her husband Brijesh Singh and two others with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12-7-2001 of the 6th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant305; AIR1968Mys305; (1968)1MysLJ146
Chandrashekhar, J. (1) The effect and the validity of Section 2 of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) (Mysore Amendment) Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act, 1963') arise for decision in these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. That Act received the assent of the President on 23-5-1964 and came into force on 6-3-1964.(2) The petitioners were Jagirdars or their co-shares of Hangandi Jagir and 3 other villages in Jamkhandi Taluk, Bijapur District. It would appear that these villages were grated in inam to their ancestors by the then Badashah of Bijapur in the 17th Century. later these inam villages formed part of the then Badashah of Bijapur in the 17th Century. later these inam villages formed part of the then State of Sangli which merged in the then Province of Bombay with effect from 8-3-1948. Thereafter these villages were included in Jamkhandi Taluk, Bijapur District. On reorganisation of States these villages are in the new S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1991)95CTR(Kar)164; [1991]188ITR749(KAR); [1991]188ITR749(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The effect of section 10(6A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the working of section 195 is to be considered in these writ petitions.2. The petitioner had the benefit of the services of a non-resident company under an approved agreement; the petitioner had to pay certain sums to the non-resident company for the services rendered, on its behalf, by its engineer. The petitioner had to pay U. S. dollars 14,950 to the non-resident company; on this, the income-tax payable has to be paid by the petitioner under section 195 of the Act. The petitioner requested the first respondent to determine the tax to be paid on remittance of the amount and to issue a non-objection certificate. The net amount payable in terms of Indian currency was stated as Rs. 1,64,738 and the gross amount as Rs. 2,74,563; on this the tax of Rs. 1,09,825 was demanded as per no objection certificate dated May 18, 1984. After paying the tax and remitting the amount, the petitioner sought refund of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR3422; 1987(2)KarLJ357
Nesargi, J.This is defendant's appeal. The respondents filed O.S. No. 155 of 1978 in the Court of the Munsiff, Basavakalyan, under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as H.A. & M. Act) claiming maintenance from the defendant.2. The basic facts in the plaint are :- Respondent-1-plaintiff-1 is the married wife of the defendant-appellant and Respondent-2 is the minor daughter of plaintiff-1 and the defendant.3. The defendant contended that he had married one Sarjabai in 1964 and after her death, he married one Ranjanabai in the year 1967. As she had not yet attained puberty, she was not brought home. Plaintiff-1 was acquainted with him. Intimacy developed between them and the villagers insisted that he must marry plaintiff-1. He married her according to customary ceremonies and rites. Plaintiff-2 is his daughter by plaintiff-1. In view of the fact that his marriage with plaintiff-1 had taken place during the subsistence of the marriage betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR3227
1. This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners/judgment debtors 1 and 2 against the decree holder challenging the orders dated 30.11.2001 on a memo filed by the judgment debtor dated 19.10.2001 in Ex. Case No. 247/99.2. The facts that led to the filing of this revision petition in brief are as under :The respondent herein had filed O.S. No. 7905/95 against the revision petitioners for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- and odd with interest. The said suit ended in a compromise as the compromise petition came to be filed on 10.11.1998. On the very same day the suit was decreed with consent of both the parties. Subsequently, the present execution petition 247/99 came to be filed for recovery of the amount.3. It is also gathered from the arguments of the learned Counsels and also the records that several applications came to be filed by the decree holder and also the judgment debtor in the execution petition. Challenging the said orders revisions were also filed before this Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2009KAR510:2009(1)KCCR824:2009(2)AIRKarR1:AIR2009NOC1169.
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. This second appeal is against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.11.96 passed by Principal Munsiff, Kola-in O.S. No. 523/90 which was affirmed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Kolar in R.A. No. 1/97 dated 03.02.03.2. Appellant is the original defendant. Respondent is the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred hereinafter with reference to their rank in the suit.3. Facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows:Plaintiff and defendant are the wife and husband. Defendant was the owner of plaint schedule property. He had executed in favour of plaintiff, a Mahar deed, dated 30.12.87, which was registered. Plaintiff and defendant have amongst them three children. Disharmony having come into existence, plaintiff and defendant are living separately. Defendant had instituted O.S. No. 584/89 on the file of Munsiff, Kolar, against plaintiff for decree of declaration of title and for permanent Injunction in respect of suit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Manjula Chellur, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue tinder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act aggrieved by the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, in ITA No. 817/Bang/1954 dated 7.8.2002, raising the following substantial question of law.Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without the assessee discharging the burden under the explanation which would entitle such a deletion by merely holding that the subsequent admission revised return and the co-operative attitude of the assessee was sufficient to delete the penalty?2. It is not in dispute that the assessee in question - the respondent before us came into existence under a deed of partnership in the year 1986. The assesses was carrying on business of selling and supplying of arrack and the return of income came to be filed on 5.10.1998 for the assessment year 1988-89 declaring a total income of Rs. 87,380-. A search came to be conducted between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)325; 1998(1)KarLJ665
ORDER1. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 805 of 1995 and 77 of 1996 are filed by the accused and are directed against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 15-11-1995, recalling the order of discharge passed by the Court dated 1-8-1995, thereby restoring the complaint on its file.2. Criminal Revision Petition No. 665 of 1995 is filed by the complainant against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 1-8-1995, discharging the accused on the ground of not adducing the evidence before charge. Since the parties in all these revisions are the same and common questions of law and facts arise in these matters, they are by consent of the learned Counsels, clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.3. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 665 of 1995 (who will be hereinafter called as the complainant) filed a complaint under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code before the J.M.F.C., Haven in Dharwad District, alleging offences punishable under Sections 449, 504,...
Tag this Judgment!