Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-03-1991
Reported in : ILR1991KAR4208; 1992(1)KarLJ510
..... court has held as follows:- 'the council of scientific and industrial research, a society registered under the societies registration act is not an authority within the meaning of article 12. the society does not have a statutory character like the oil and natural gas commission or the life insurance corporation. the fact that the prime minister is the president or that the government appoints nominees to the governing body or that the government ..... is a 'state' within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution. according to the company, it is true that it has been deemed as 'government company' under sections 6 and 7 of the companies act, 1956. 15% of the shares is held by the government. according to it, the extent of share holding is as follows:- equity shares66.11%preferential shares34.19%total holding ..... government grants have been applied and enforced. in a welfare state, governmental control is very pervasive and in fact touches all aspects of social existence. in the absence of a fair application of the tests to be made, there is possibility of turning every non-governmental society into an agency or instrumentality of the state. that obviously would not serve the purpose and may be far ..... undertakings. according to them, out of rs. 300.54 paid up share capital, rs. 190 lakhs has been subscribed by the state government, rs. 43.23 lakhs has been subscribed by the central government/financial institutions/ psc/central government, the other share capital is only rs. 67.22 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-28-1991
Reported in : [1994]79CompCas722(Kar); 1991(4)KarLJ148
Kedambadi Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This company application is filed by the respondents seeking an order as follows : This hon'ble court may be pleased to permit the respondents to give effect to the resolution dated August 3, 1989, passed at the extraordinary general meeting held on August 3, 1989, minutes whereof has been filed along with the statement of objections as annexure R-23 to the company petition. 2. In the application the respondents have averred that the petitioner in the company petition filed an Application No. 868 of 1989, praying for grant of temporary injunction to restrain them from holding the extra-ordinary general meeting on August 3, 1989. This court passed an order dated August 1, 1989, which reads as follows : 'The respondents may hold the general meeting, any resolution passed thereat shall not be given effect to or acted upon until this court otherwise directs. It is also clarified, that by the holding of the general meeting and the passing of the resolution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-21-1991
Reported in : ILR1991KAR4266
Rama Jois, Ag.C.J.1. In this Writ Appeal the following question of law arises for consideration;Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked for condoning the delay in making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, beyond the period of 90 days prescribed in the said Section?2. The brief facts of the case are these:- Appellant was the owner of 36 cents of land in Karkala Casba village, Karkala Taluk. This land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1983. The appellant challenged the legality of the order before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7966/1986. That Writ Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 524/1988. That Writ Appeal was dismissed on 29-3-1988. Thereafter, the appellant who was served with notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act on 28-5-1986 itself filed an application under Section 18 of the La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-21-1991
Reported in : AIR1992Kant331; 1992(1)KarLJ464
ORDERM. Rama Jois, Acting C.J.1. In this writ appeal the following question of law arises for consideration :Whether the provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked for condoning the delay in making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, beyond the period of 90 days prescribed in the said section?2. The brief facts of the case are these:--Appellant was the owner of 36 cents of land in Karkala Casba village, Karkala Taluk. This land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1983. The appellant challenged the legality of the order before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7966/1986. That writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 524/ 1988. That writ appeal was dismissed on 29-3-1988. Thereafter, the appellant who was served with notice of award under S. 12(2) of the Act on 28-5-1986 itself filed an application under S. 18 of the Lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-17-1991
Reported in : 1991(3)KarLJ68
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. This is a reference under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'). The question that we are called upon to answer, at the instance of the Revenue, reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by holding that the value of debentures issued in favour of financial institutions represented borrowings from these institutions and that they fulfilled the requirements of the provisions of rule 1(v) of the Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. 3. In arriving at the capital base for the computation of surtax, the assessee claimed that the average value of the debentures which it had issued in favour of five institutions formed part of its capital base for surtax purpose. The debentures were issued on October 1, 1973. They were issued to the Industrial C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-16-1991
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3789; 1991(3)KarLJ609
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium metal and has a smeltor complex at Belgaum, It is alleged that in response to 'An Invitation to Investors in Industry' published by the Government of Karnataka in 1966, the petitioners set up a smeltor complex and an aluminium plant at Belgaum on the basis of the assurances given by the State Government in the said brochure. An agreement was entered into between the 1st petitioner, the State Government and the State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 26-3-1966 for supply of electric power at a fixed rate for the duration of the agreement. In the said agreement provision was made for supply of power at a fixed rate with electricity tax at stipulated rate for a period of 25 years with an option for renewal for a further period of 25 years. On the basis of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement, it is claimed by the 1st petitioner, that it set up the complex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-24-1991
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3731; 1992(1)KarLJ255
S. Mohan, G.J.1. Since Writ Appeal No. 1669/1991 arises out of an interlocutory order dated June 18, 1991 made in Writ Petition No. 13266/1991 directing the appellant to pay to the second respondent a sum of Rs. 25,000/- subject to reinstating the second respondent and paying him the current wages, we asked the learned counsel on both sides whether we could have the writ petition itself disposed of on merits. They agreed to this course. That is how the writ petition also has come up before us. Since the judgment in the writ petition will govern the writ appeal as well, we propose to deal with the writ petition first. 2. The second respondent-workman was appointed by the appellant-petitioner in February 1974 on a temporary basis as a Helper. He was given intermittent work till September 1974. Thereafter his services were dispensed with. Again he was employed by the appellant from February 25, 1978 and he continued in the said employment till August 20, 1978. From August 21, 1978 he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-06-1991
Reported in : 1(1992)ACC583
M. Rama Jois and B.N. Krishnan, JJ.1. These 105 appeals have been preferred by the various claimants who title Claim petitions seeking to recover compensation in respect of either the injuries sustained by them or the death of some one on whom they were dependent for their sustenance, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitions preferred by them under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short 'the Act') The Tribunal without recording any evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident in which the several persons sustained injuries or died, could not be held to arise out of the user of the motor vehicle and as such it had no jurisdiction to try the Claim petitions.2. The case put forward by the claimants in all the cases in brief is as hereunder:On 30th October, 1985 a tanker truck bearing registration No. MST-6277 belonging to the 2nd respondent filled with motor spirit at Wadla Terminal, Bombay left Bombay towards its destination viz., Hyderabad. On 1.11.1985 at ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-06-1991
Reported in : I(1992)ACC583; 1992ACJ623; ILR1992KAR597; 1991(3)KarLJ703
Krishnan, J.1. These 105 Appeals have been preferred by the various claimants who filed claim petitions seeking to recover compensation in respect of either the injuries sustained by them or the death of someone on whom they were dependent for their sustenance, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitions preferred by them under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). The Tribunal without recording any evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident in which the several, persons sustained injuries or died, could not be held to arise out of the user of the motor vehicles and as such it had no jurisdiction to try the claim petitions.2. The case put forward by the claimants in all the cases in brief is as hereunder:On 30th October, 1985 a tanker truck bearing registration No. MST- 6277 belonging to the 2nd respondent filled with motor spirit at Wadla Terminal, Bombay left Bombay towards its destination viz., Hyderabad. On 1-11-1985 at about 7.20 A.M. it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-23-1991
Reported in : (1991)99CTR(Kar)269; ILR1991KAR3414; [1992]194ITR584(KAR); [1992]194ITR584(Karn)
..... the meaning intended to be conveyed by the use of the words under the circumstances. therefore, though ordinarily the word 'insurer' as used in the act (insurance act, 1938) would mean a person or body corporate actually carrying on the business of insurance it may be that in certain sections the word may have a somewhat different meaning.' the above being the canon of interpretation of definition clauses, ..... observed above about the apparent consideration and the power of the chief commissioner of income-tax, bangalore. in p. j. francis v. p. j. verghese, air 1956 mad 680, it is held as follows (p. 681) : 'but the fact that the parties did not raise the question as to want of jurisdiction or even acquiesced in ..... the transferor and the transferor. hence our unanimous decision to issue purchase order under section 269ud(1) of the income-tax act in this case.' 43. therefore, it is beyond doubt that elaborate reasons have been given as to why the power under section 269ud(1) ought to be exercised. we are clearly of the view that reasons are to be recorded ..... life, or any greater estate, may apply to the court by petition in a summary way to exercise the powers conferred by this act.' the 17th section provides that, subject to the exception contained in the next section, every application must be made with the concurrence of certain persons. it appears to me that the 16th section, though in form merely enabling, is in fact the only enabling part which entitles the court to set the act .....
Tag this Judgment!