Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT APPEAL No.1318 OF2022(EXCISE) C/W WRIT APPEAL No.26 OF2023(EXCISE) IN WA No.1318/2022 BETWEEN: SMT. SAVITHA K.R., W/O LATE MAHADEV AGED ABOUT60YEARS R/AT No.4/40, 4TH CROSS NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 096. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA2D FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK BMTC BUILDING SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. 2 3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 027. 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, (EAST) BENGALURU - 560 027. 5 . SRI. K. MANJUNATH S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT40YEARS R/AT No.282, 2ND STAGE3D BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAG...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT APPEAL No.1318 OF2022(EXCISE) C/W WRIT APPEAL No.26 OF2023(EXCISE) IN WA No.1318/2022 BETWEEN: SMT. SAVITHA K.R., W/O LATE MAHADEV AGED ABOUT60YEARS R/AT No.4/40, 4TH CROSS NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 096. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE) AND:1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER IN KARNATAKA2D FLOOR, TTMC 'A' BLOCK BMTC BUILDING SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. 2 3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 027. 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, (EAST) BENGALURU - 560 027. 5 . SRI. K. MANJUNATH S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT40YEARS R/AT No.282, 2ND STAGE3D BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAG...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE9H DAY OF MARCH, 2020 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.52 OF2014Between:1. Mr. Babu Naika S/o Annu Naika Aged about 33 years R/at Kalpane House Kodiyala Village Sullia Taluk D.K. 574201.2. Mr. Praveena S/o Subbayya Gowda Aged about 33 years R/at Nidyala House Punacha Village Bantwala Taluk D.K.-. 574217.3. Mr. Manoj Poojary S/o Late Narayana Poojary Aged about 34 years R/at Nelyadka House Aryapu Village, Post Sampya Puttur Taluk D.K.-574201.4. Mr. Krishna Naika S/o Ithu Naika Aged about 34 years 2 R/at Bellur, Kinninowehar Village Via Mulleriya Kasargod Taluk and District 600218. ... Petitioners (By Smt. Haleema Ameen Advocate for Sri Vishwajith Shetty .S - Advocate) And: The State of Karnataka Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bangalore 560 001. ... Respondent (By Smt. Yashodha .K.P.-. HCGP) ****** This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 39...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(6)KarLJ194
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Government Advocate for the appellants and the learned Counsels for the respondent, at a considerable length and carefully perused the relevant case papers, including the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, in the light of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 and the Rules framed thereunder and also the precedents.2. This is a writ appeal filed by the appellant-State and its authorities against an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Thirumala Distilleries, Tumkur v. State of Karnataka and Ors., : ILR2002KAR2889 , whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-distillery has been allowed and the orders made by the appellants 2 and 3 at Annexures-J and G to the writ petition, have been set aside or quashed and an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- deposited, if any by the respondent-distillery with the appellant 3 in compliance with the interim order dated 7-6-2000 has been ordered to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR186
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is a resident of K.R. Sagar has sought for quashing the C.L. 2 licence granted to the 4th respondent to vend liquor in the premises No. 310 of K.R. Sagar, granted by the second- respondent by his order dated 30th July 1984 in No. EXE. MDY. IML. 104 of 83-84 produced as Annexure-D. It is a public interest litigation.2. The case of the petitioner is that the premises in respect of which C. L. 2 Licence is granted to respondent No. 4 by the second-respondent is situated within 200 metres from the Temple, Harijan Colony and the School. Therefore it is liable to be quashed as the same is opposed to the provisions contained in Standing Circular No. 108 issued by the Excise Commissioner for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and specially for the purpose of issuing licences under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(1)KarLJ303;
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 30th July, 2002, in proceedings No. FD 148 EDC 2002 on the file of the 1st respondent vide Annexure-C and to quash the consequential Notification issued by the 2nd respondent in so far as it relates to the petitioner vide Notification bearing No. ECS:8: AUG:2002 dated 1-8-2002 vide Annexure-D.2. The grievance made out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that, the petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of right to vend arrack in polythene sachets for the Excise Year 2002-03 in respect of Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. The bid of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- lakhs par month was accepted and he was allowed to vend arrack in polythene sachets for the period from 1-7-2002 to 30-6-2003. Accordingly, the petitioner's bid was provisionally accepted on 3-6-2002 and it was sent to the 2nd respondent for confirmat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1978Kant17; 1977(2)KarLJ416
ORDER1. These three writ petitions under Article 226(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India (42nd Amendment) are by the petitioners who are excise contractors and who had been given lease of right of retail vend of Arrack and Toddy for the year 1976-77 in different taluks in Shimoga, Chickmagalur and Chitradurga Districts, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the 1st respondent in H.D. 65 EDC 77 dated 24th June, 1977 and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus in W. P. Nos. 5239 and 5240 of 1977 regarding the disposal of the lease of right of vend of Arrak and Toddy afresh in those taluks.2. These writ petitions raise common questions of facts and law and, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by a common order.3. In W. P. No. 5093/1977 the case of the petitioner is that he had been given the lease of right of retail vend of Arrak in the year 1976-77 by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, for Rs. 95,100/- towards the monthly rent of lease to ven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR587
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The first two Writ Petitions are public interest petitions, in which the petitioners have challenged the legality of an order of the State Government under which contract for bottling Arrack was granted to respondents 3 to 10 on the ground that a largess involving a total turnover of Rs. 50 crores had been granted to them, in flagrant violation of law and on collateral consideration. In the other petitions the petitioners therein have questioned the legality of the same Government order.2. The background and history of the cases are as follows : (i) Pursuant to the decision of the Government that arrack should be supplied to the consumers in sealed bottles or sachets, to avoid the possibility of adulteration, on 11th April, 1984, the Excise Commissioner invited applications from persons interested in undertaking the bottling of arrack at 18 places in the State most of which are District head quarters. The applicants were required to furnish their names and addresse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR730; 1998(5)KarLJ62
ORDER1. Alleging corruption, favouritism, nepotism and mala fides against respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner herein has prayed for the issuance of appropriate writ or direction striking down the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) (Amendment) Rules, 1997 as being illegal and unconstitutional and for a direction to the respondent-State to enforce the 1989 amendment rules. It is further prayed that a direction be issued for appointing an authority such as C.B.I., to probe in detail to find out the total loss caused to the respondent-State by way of evasion of payment of excise duties, cesses, sales tax on the sale of 'seconds' in IMFL which were allegedly sold without payment of excise duty cesses and sales tax during the period from December 1985 when the Supreme Court is stated to have affirmed the 1989 Amended Rules, till date by non-implementation of the 1989 Rules. It is contended that the difference be directed to be recovered personally from respondents 3 and 4.T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(3)KarLJ162; 2007(4)KCCR2215; 2007(3)AIRKarR1
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petitioner, a limited company, is a holder of licence to run, establish and function a distillery in terms of the Rule 3 of the Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) Rules, 1967. Under the licence, the petitioner is permitted to manufacture potable alcohol using rectified spirit or alcohol. Petitioner pays duty on the alcohol beverages that the petitioner manufactures from out of the rectified spirit that is used for such purpose. The duty is levied and paid in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 [for short, the Act] read with the Karnataka Excise (Excise Duties and Fees) Rules, 1968.2. For the purpose of producing the potable liquor which the petitioner manufactures under different brand names and which is produced directly from the rectified spirit by such spirit is fed into wooden casks for maturation, thereafter by giving such treatment as individual manufacturers have developed and depending upon the nature of such t...
Tag this Judgment!