Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1986]161ITR589(KAR); [1986]161ITR589(Karn)
R.S. Mahendra, J.1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari quashing Exhibit-B, the order of the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-V, Bangalore (ITO), dt. 26-8-1978, issue of a writ of Prohibition restraining respondent-1 from taking any steps pursuant to Exhibit-B and also to declare the provision relating aggregation of agricultural income for rate purposes, as unconstitutional offending Art(s) 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 2. The facts leading to this petition are these : The petitioner is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). He has his year of accounting ending on 31st of March every year. For the asst. yr. 1976-77 the Finance Act, 1976 (Finance Act), was applicable to the petitioner and he filed his return declaring his income from his business property as also income from agriculture. He, however, sent a representation Exhibit-A on 14-8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Mahendra, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing exhibit B, the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, Bangalore, dated August 26, 1978, issue of a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 from taking any steps pursuant to exhibit B and also to declare the provision relating aggregation of agricultural income for rate purposes unconstitutional as offending articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 2. The facts leading to this petition are these : The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. He has his year of accounting ending on 31st of March every year. For the assessment year 1976-77, the Finance Act, 1976 ('the Finance Act'), was applicable to the petitioner and he filed his return declaring his income from his business, property, as also income from agriculture. He, however, sent a representation, exhibit A, on August 14, 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR2339
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.These two Petitions are disposed of by the following common order.1. Petitioner in the first of the petitions is Jindal Aluminium Limited which has described itself as a manufacturer of aluminium products, inter alia, extruded aluminium pipes and other components which go to make what is popularly described as Sprinkler Irrigation Equipment. Similarly, petitioner in the second of the petitions Associated Irrigation Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd., is also a manufacturer of Sprinkler Irrigation Equipment as a small-scale industrial unit, though it does not manufacture either the components or the aluminium pipes of specified sizes. Both claim to be in this field for considerable period with sufficient experience.2. Petitioner in the first of the petitions has alleged that it was the normal practice of the Government of the State of Karnataka to invite tenders for fixing rate contracts in respect of the Sprinkler Irrigation Equipment needed by its various departme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR2007
ORDERBopanna, J.1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since a common question arises for consideration in all these petitions.2. The petitioners are all Ex badli conductors of the 1st respondent/Corporation. Their services were dispensed with by the Corporation on the ground that they were found not suitable for the posts of conductors. Such termination ex-facie was clearly violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). However, the Corporation in the year 1978 under a Settlement (also known as truce agreement) within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Act agreed that these badli and part-time employees who had put in 180 days of 'uninterrupted continuous service' and who were in the badli list or in any temporary appointment on the date of signing of the truce, would be absorbed in service subject to the availability of permanent posts. The relevant term in the settlement reads as under :'4. Badli and part-time employees.I(a) All the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1986)55CTR(Kar)252; [1986]160ITR203(KAR); [1986]160ITR203(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. M/s. Attikhan (Biligiri) Limited, Bangalore ('Attikhan'), a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, owned an extensive coffee estates measuring about 427 acres in Chamarajnagar Taluk of Mysore District and by an order made by this court on June 19, 1981, that company had merged in another public limited company called Sanghameshwar Coffee Estates Limited, Bangalore ('Sanghameshwar'). As transferee of all the assets and liabilities of Attikhan, Sanghameshwar has filed these revision petitions before this court. We will, however, treat them as the assessee.2. On the coffee estate owned by it, Attikhan had constructed and maintained a Hindu temple employing the services of a poojari or a priest and had incurred pooja expenses from time to time.3. For the assessment years 1976-77 to 1980-81 relevant to the corresponding previous years, the assessee filed its returns under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1986(8)ECC113; 1986(24)ELT507(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by Venkatachaliah, J. this case was posted before us for disposal.2. The Davangere Cotton Mills Limited, Davangere Chitradurga District ('DCM') with its registered office at Davangere, a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, is the petitioner before us. The petitioner is operating a composite textile mill at its factory situated on Chitradurga Road, Davangere City, inter alia manufacturing different kinds of yarn which is ultimately consumed in its own factory for the manufacture of different kinds of textile or fabrics. For the manufacture of different kinds of yarn and textiles or fabrics the petitioner had obtained separate licences from the competent licensing authority under the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944) and the Central Excise Rules of 1944 framed there under ('the Act and the Rules'). The different kinds of yarn manufactured at the factory are dutiable to excise duty under tari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1986(9)ECC25; 1986(24)ELT235(Kar)
ORDER1. M/s. Precision Telecom Products, Bangalore, which is the petitioner before us, is a partnership firm of partners engaged in the manufacture of transmitters and other components for telephones that are ultimately manufactured by the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (ITI). The petitioner is an ancillary unit of the ITI and has that unit in the Industrial Estate of ITI. 2. The ITI that ultimately manufactures telephones entrusts the manufacture of certain components to the petitioner on 'job work' basis. The raw materials supplied by the ITI are used in the manufacture of transmitters and components and they are then returned to the ITI, collecting the job charges from the latter. In the payment of excise duty dutiable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act') the petitioner had excluded the raw materials supplied by the ITI and returned to it on job work basis. 3. But in the show cause notices dated 27-11-1980/1-12-1980 and 24-4-1981, issued to the petitioner under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR4048; 1986(1)KarLJ59
Patil, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated November 22, 1983, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1983, on his file.2. The appellant Raghu yane Raghavendra (A-l) and his elder brother Murali (A-2) were jointly tried on the charge of the Commission of offence of murder punishable under Sections 302 R/W 34 IPC for having intentionally caused the death of one Ramesh. The appellant was also further separately charged with the commission of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. Murali was held to be not guilty of the charge of the offence levelled against him. The appellant was also held to be not guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 or Section 302 R/W Section 34 IPC. He was. however, found to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of five years thereon, being aggrieved of which he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1988Kant293; ILR1987KAR3615
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. W.P. N9. 12587/85 is by Bharatiya Veterinary Educational Society and three others (all of them are collectively referred hereinafter as 'the society' or as society and its co petitioners). W.P. Nos. 14696 and 18238/1985 are by 102 petitioners, who are referred as the 'students'. The first two respondents are common in these writ petitions. In the writ petitions filed by the students, the society is imp leaded as the 3rd respondent and the College in question is the 4th respondent..2. The society seeks the quashing of S. 6A of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 (a State enactment - referred hereinafter as the Act'), by declaring the said section as unconstitutional. In the writ petitions filed- by the students, they seek a direction to the State Government to initiate an appropriate action against the society and the college., by invoking S. 27-A of the 'Karnataka Societies Registration Act, in the light of S. 6-A of the Act. They also seek provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3189; 1985(2)KarLJ333
Kudoor, J.1. R.F.A. No. 370/1982 is against the decree in O. S. No. 10462/1980 and R.F.A. No. 371/1982 is against the decree in O.S. No. 5673/1980 of even date 31-10-1982 arising out of a common judgment passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appellant in both the appeals is one T.K. Bose, who isthe sole defendant in O.S. No. 10462/1980 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5673/1980.2. O.S. No. 5673/1980 is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff continues to be the Director and Chairman of the 1st defendant- . Sree Venkatesha Electrical Industries (Private) Limited- (for short the 'Company'), that the office of the Directorship of the Company held by the plaintiff has not fallen vacant under clause (i) of sub-section (l) of Section 283 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act'), that the proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company held on 24-10-1980 are null and void, that defendant-3 was not validly appointed as a Director of the Company...
Tag this Judgment!