Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1986(10)ECC27; 1986(24)ELT252(Kar); [1986]159ITR464(KAR); [1986]159ITR464(Karn)
ORDER1. The petitioners are manufacturers of Sugar and during the period 1-12-1973 to 30-9-1974 they had produced excess sugar and had claimed a rebate under Notification No. 152/74, dated 20-11-1974 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules ('the Rules'). Under the notification a concessional rate of excise duty on each quintal of excess sugar produced at varied rates on levy sugar and free sale sugar, was payable as per the table. A reduced rate of duty was provided on the excess sugar produced by the petitioner-company as an incentive to produce more sugar. By applying the concessional rate of levy to the excess sugar produced, proforma credit of Rs. 33,79,904.30 Ps. was allowed as per the endorsement (Annexure E), dated 11-6-1975 issued by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum. The actual date on which this sum was taken to credit in the books of the Company was 13-6-1975. 2. On 3-4-1978, the third respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioners why a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3272
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1985)48CTR(Kar)31; ILR1985KAR786; [1986]158ITR548(KAR); [1986]158ITR548(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J. 1. On a reference made by Venkataramaiah J. (as he then was), these cases have been posted before us for disposal. 2. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 3. In order to appreciate the questions that arise for determination in these cases, it is enough to notice the facts in Writ Petition No. 1462 of 1973 as illustrative only and not as exhaustive. 4. One Sirigeri Govindappa, a resident of Gangavathi of Raichur District, who was the karta of a Mitakshara Hindu undivided joint family (HUF) consisting of himself, his wife, Smt. Sirigeri Thippamma, his son, Ranganna, and an unmarried daughter, Kumari Raghamma, died on February 8, 1969. The Hindu undivided family owned considerable movable and immovable properties. 5. On November 17, 1969, Smt. Sirigeri Thippamma, the petitioner before us, as the 'accountable person' under the Estate Duty Act of 1953 (Central Act 34 of 1953) ('the Act'), file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1984KAR1368; [1985]151ITR197(KAR); [1985]151ITR197(Karn); 1984(2)KarLJ396
Puttaswamy, J. 1. In T.R.C. No. 17 of 1974, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, has referred the following questions under s. 64(b) of the E.D. Act of 1953 (Central Act No. 34 of 1953) ('the Act') : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was for the Tribunal an error of law to hold that the provisions of section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act are not applicable to the case (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was for the Tribunal an error of law to hold that the provisions of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act are not applicable to the case 2. In T.R.C. No. 85 of 1975, the Tribunal at the instance of the accountable person ('assessee'), has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act were operative and ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1986Kant119
ORDER1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, in which the petitioners, who are the managements as also individuals, who are members of the management of various private engineering colleges in the State, have questioned the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 ('the Act' for short) and orders issued thereunder, the following main question arises forconsideration :Where the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Arts. 19(1)(c), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution includes the right to establish and administer the Educational Institutions of their choice? and if.so, whether the Act which prohibits the collection of Capitation Fee for admission to Education Institutions except to the extent permitted by an order made under the proviso to S. 3 of the Act is violative all or any of those Articles and, Arts. 14, 31A and 300A of the Constitution?Facts of the Case :Originally the Writ Petitions were presented quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1983KAR223; 1984(2)KarLJ185
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 2221 of 1982 is filed by defendant-2 and is directed against the order dated 8-7-1982 of the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No- 8041 of 1980 brought by Respondents 1 to 3 as Plaintiffs in that suit. Civil Revision Petition No. 2995 of 1982 is filed by the State of Karnataka against the very same order of the Learned Judge. But, in that case the State has filed a memo on 30-3-1983 praying for permission to withdraw the same, which has given rise to Writ Petition No. 7525 of 1983 by one Sri G.P. Shivaprakash, an Advocate of this Court. In the course of my order hereafter, I will refer to those who are parties in O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 by their array in that suit, the State of Karnataka, Petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2995 of 1982 which is Respondent-I in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 1983 as the State and Sri G. P. Shivaprakash, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 198) as the Petitioner.2. In order to appreciate the severa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1984KAR250; 1984(2)KarLJ99
1. This Revision Petition by the tenant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 1-2-1982 made by the District Judge, D.K., Mangalore, in Civil Revision Petition No. 133 of 1980, on his file, dismissing the revision petition of the tenant, on confirming the order dated 15-91980 made by the First Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, in HRC No. 62 of 1976, on his file, allowing the petition of the landlord under Clause (j) of the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The landlord sought for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises under Clauses (j) and (1) of the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act, though during hearing he gave up the claim under Clause (1) of the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act. The landlord averred that himself and his wife purchased the petition schedule premises, among others, by a registered sale deed dated 19-7-1973 (Exhibit P-9) with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy. J). these cases were posted before us for disposal.2. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are either common or interconnected, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. We therefore propose to dispose of them by a common order.3. Prior to 25-9-1975 the then existing three Universities in the State called 'the Bangalore University', 'the Karnataka University' and 'the Mysore University were governed by three separate enactments. On 25-9- 1975 the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Art. 213 of the Constitution promulgated the Karnataka State Universities Ordinance of 1975 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 12 of 1975) in order to have a uniform law relating to the Universities in the State. The Ordinance was replaced by the Karnataka State Universities Act of 1976 (Karnataka Act 28 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), giving it retrospective effect from 25-9-1975....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1984KAR21; 1984(2)KarLJ1
Kudoor, J.1. These two criminal appeals by the State arise out of the judgment and order dated 30th November 1981 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in S. C. No. 28/1981. Cr. A. No. 281/1982 is one under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of all the five accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447 and Section 302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. and also the acquittal of A2 to A5 of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 I. P. C. Cr.A. No. 282/1982 is one under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the sentence awarded against A1 to A3 for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 304 Part II read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. All the five accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. on the ground that all of them on 24-12-1980 at about 3 p.m. constituted themselves into an unlawful assembly armed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1986]59CompCas113(Kar)
Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga, passed on the 17th day of January, 1981, in Mis. MVC No. 21 of 1980 on his file, dismissing the petition on a preliminary issue, holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. 2. The claim petition, inter alia, avers thus: 'On March 25, 1980, at about 6.30 p.m. he (Mallareddy) called the cleaner, Gulam Jilani, son of Gulam Rasool and told him to fill the diesel in the tractor bearing registration No. MYP 4659 which was standing in front of the house of the respondent NO.1 at Yelhair. The said Mallareddy also called the deceased, Basappa, came and held the Dalki through which cleaner, Gulaum Jilani, was pouring diesel in the said tractor. After pouring diesel the deceased, Basappa, and cleaner, Gulam Jilani, took aside `Lalaki' and tin respectively. At that time, abovesaid, Mallareddy was standing near the diesel tank of the tractor. As s...
Tag this Judgment!