Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(1)KarLJ346
1. Transfer from one institution to another is not encouraged by either the M.C.I. or the affiliating University. The rules provide for transfer only in case of hardship and in exceptional circumstances. What distinguishes the present case from the rest is that a request even for mutual transfer has not evoked any response from the respondents. In these proceedings they oppose the prayer for transfer on the ground that the request for the same was made late no matter only by ten days. Was that really so is the only question which falls for consideration in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner and respondent 5 were selected on the basis of a competitive examination for admission to undergo a Diploma Course in gynecology and obstetrics. While the petitioner was allotted to M.R. Medical College at Gulbarga, respondent 4, was allotted to Mysore Medical College at Mysore. Pursuant to the admission orders issued by the Directorate of Medical College, the petitioner joined a college ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant195; [1998]94CompCas409(Kar)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this application, the applicant-Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), has made two prayers. Firstly, the applicant has prayed for modification of the order dated October 31, 1996, made in Company Petition No. 17 of 1989, to the extent this court directed the official liquidator to forthwith take charge of all the properties and effects of the first respondent, Intermodel Transport Technology Systems (Karnataka) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), and to exempt from the direction given in the said order in so far as it relates to the assets taken over by the Corporation pursuant to the mahazar dated December 11, 1989, prepared by the Corporation and their sale in favour of the second respondent ; and, secondly, to permit the Corporation to hand over the assets of the company to the second respondent pursuant to the sale of the assets of the company made in f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1386; 2002(1)KarLJ517
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner in this petition is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is stated that it is engaged in non-banking financial activities like leasing, corporate financing, hire-purchase and other allied financial services. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of endorsement dated 20th October, 1997 issued by the third respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G to the writ petition, and also has prayed for a further direction to the third respondent to issue a fresh registration certificate in terras of the provisions contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), without insisting upon the petitioner for payment of stamp duty in terms of Article 20(3)(a) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. 3. Facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may briefly be stated as hereunder. 4. According to the case set out by the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4678
Nayak, J.1. What arises for decision in these Writ Appeals and Writ Petition is the validity of the proposal/action of the Karnataka Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') in erecting high tension line over the lands of the appellants for supply of additional power-500 KVA to M/s.Widia (India) Limited (for short 'the Widia'). The above action of the Board was assailed by the writ petitioners on the grounds that the same was contrary to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Supply Act') and the Rules framed thereunder, Section 76M of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Planning Act') and Condition 1(a) of the Work Order dated 27.05.1994. A learned Single Judge of this Court without finding any merit in the above contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners, by his common order dated the 5th day of April 1999, has dismissed the Writ Petitions.2. The events leading to filing of the Writ Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001CriLJ238
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This is a pathetic case of a young widow aged about 22 years has filed this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of custodial death of Sri Nanjunda the husband of the petitioner and further sought for direction to the State Govt. to give a suitable job to the petitioner for having lost her husband Sri Nanjunda in the custodial death case at her young age. Further the petitioner has sought for issuance of an appropriate direction to the first and second respondents to take appropriate action against the erred police personnel and officers who are responsible for causing custodial death of her husband late Nanjunda at Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to Police Station in short) and further direct them to hold an enquiry against all the Police Personnel who have been arrayed as accused persons in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant211; ILR2002KAR300; 2003(4)KarLJ331
Bharuka, J.1. The controversy Involved herein relates to the method of admission of Post Graduate Medical and Dental courses in the colleges run by the private managements The crucial question is as to whether the college Managements are entitled to device and adopt their own individual yardsicks of determining the inter se merits of candidates appearing for the courses and give admissions to them as per their choice, or, they are mandatorily bound to adhere to the normal and procedure statutorily laid down by the University Grants Commission, Medical Council of India or the Dental Council, of India (in short UGC, MCI and DCI respectively), as the case may be.2. We find it proper to mention at the very threshold that the UGC. MCI and DCI have been established under the Parliamentary Acts. These Acts are University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Indian Medical Council Act. 1956 and the Dentists Act. 1948 (in short the 'UGC Act', 'MCI Act' and 'Dentists Act,). The said bodies, in order to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2000)163CTR(Kar)410
ORDERV.K. Singhal, JIn all these Income Tax Reference Cases since controversies are common, they are decided by this common order. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law : i.e.,In ITRC No, 4/96, 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 provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'In ITRC No. 5/96, 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 section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961'In ITRC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]111STC351(Kar)
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This is an appeal filed assailing the order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Belgaum zone, Belgaum, dated April 18, 1995.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') dealing in wholesale of the Indian-made foreign liquors (IMFL). The appellant filed the return of turnover disclosing the total and the taxable turnover of Rs. 35,47,530.50 and Rs. 12,75,228.47 respectively for the year 1990-91. The assessment was determined fixing the total turnover at Rs. 35,79,588.13 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 14,25,173.86 and amongst other things held that beer purchased within the State from the breweries during the accounting year 1989-90 and held in closing stock on March 31, 1990 which is the pending stock for the year 1990-91 at Rs. 1,93,330 have to suffer KST under Section 5(3) and not Section 5(1-A) and so it is exigible to tax under Section 5(1-A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2001]121STC175(Kar)
V.K. SINGHAL, J. 1. All these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment since the controversy is common.2. The facts of Keshoram Surindranath Photo-Mag (P) Ltd., are taken into consideration. The appellant carries on the business of taking photographs and supplying prints thereof, making enlargements from negatives given by the customers and preparing positive prints from the negatives brought by the customers. A consolidated amount is charged depending upon the work involved and the size and number of prints required. It is contended that the photographs of one person cannot be sold to another as it is a non-marketable commodity and the contract is one of pure skill and labour from which the desired results are obtained. After the photograph is taken or film is 'received developing and processing of the film is done under controlled temperature, chemical involvement and time-limit. The quality of print is the result of technical knowledge and expertise. After the film is exposed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (2008)11VST143(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act').Petitioner is aggrieved by a provisional assessment order bearing No. JCCT (INT) SZ. DCCT (INT-I), INS-02/04-05, dated December 13, 2004 (copy at annexure J), passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes--respondent No. 1 herein, who had an occasion to inspect the business premises of the petitioner on March 20, 2004 and had followed up by issue of a proposition notice for provisional assessment on March 26, 2004 and the proceedings culminating in the provisional assessment order dated December 13, 2004.2. The only ground entertained for examination of this writ petition is the challenge to the provisional assessment order on the premise that the respondent No. 1 lacked jurisdiction to pass the said provisional assessment order in terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 28 of the Act for the reason that the provisional assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!