Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice issued by the respondent at Annexure-K dated 24.11.2015 and etc.) 1. The petitioner, Vishwas Concrete Products Private Limited, engaged in the business of running a concrete mixing industrial unit situated at Chandapur and Yelahanka villages is naving a HT power supply to the extent of 200 KV from the respondent-BESCOM and had been paying concessional rate of power supply under category HT-2(a) of the Tariff Schedule published by the respondent- BESCOM, as applicable to the industrial units. 2. Being aggrieved by the order at Annexure-C dated 22.07.2016 passed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (El), Attibele Sub-Division, Chandapura, demanding difference of power tariff, treating the petitioner's unit as falling under HT-2(b) category, which provides for a higher tariff rate applicable to commercial establishments and the demand of Rs.13,05,908.00 was raised agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the 2nd respondent to direct 3rd respondent not to act upon and to quash the notice dated 13.1.2014 vide Annexures-E and El respectively. These petitions having been reserved, this day, the Court pronounced the following:) 1. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that, the petitioners are tite Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Makali Grama Panchayat (for short 'the Panchayat'). Respondents 5 to 11, the members of the Panchayat, having presented a Motion of No-Confidence on 02.01.2014, the 3rd respondent has given notice dated 13.01.2014 in Form-II under Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-Confidence against Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules'), fixing the meeting of the Panchayat on 29.01.2014 at 12.00 noon at the Panchayat Office. Petitioners having received the notice of the said meeting, filed these writ petitions on 24....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)ALT(Cri)183; 1998CriLJ1005; ILR1998KAR910
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code questioning the order passed by the JMFC., Kundapura, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 3025/1996. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP for the respondent. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that if the entire case of the petitioner is taken into consideration no offence is made out as against these petitioners who are qualified Doctors and no negligence can be attributed to these petitioners. It is also submitted that act of these petitioners are well protected under law. Therefore the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is abuse of the process of the Court and calls for interference. 3. However, the learned State Public Prosecutor contended that all these grounds can be urged by the petitioners before the learned Magistrate and it is too early for this Court to interfere with the order p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999LC467(Karnataka); 2000(115)ELT615(Kar); ILR1999KAR2353; 2000(2)KarLJ62
ORDER1. Validity of proviso to Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have been assailed in this petition. Section 35 provides the appeal to be filed within a period of three months and the proviso further provides a period of another three months for condonation of delay. If the appeal is filed after the expiry of 6 months then the Appellate Authority has nopower to condone the delay, therefore it is contended that it is arbitrary exercise of power by the Parliament. It is stated that there may be number of circumstances by which an assessee is prevented from filing the appeal and taking away his right to file an appeal is violative of the right of the petitioner to carry on his business as even the tax which is levied may be without the authority of law itself for which the petitioner would have no remedy.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on the ground of condonation of delay relied on the following judgments;State of Kerala v E.K. Kuriyipe and Others: 'The sufficient case fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant245; 1990(1)KarLJ173
ORDER1. Unfortunately this matter has been posted once again before me on account of what was recorded on 8-2-1989, When I proceeded for orders, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested for an adjournment. Therefore, it was adjourned by one week. Today, I have heard Mr. Baliga once again in the light of the noting made by my learned brother PKSJ., on Feb. 16, 1989.2. The questions which are raised before this Court are :--1. Whether the order under revision is bereft of reason? 2. If it is not bereft of reasons whether the reasons given may be said to be sustainable reasons legally? 3. The brief facts are these :--Plaintiff filed the suit inter alia seeking a permanent injunction restraining defendant and also made an application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction. It is asserted that no temporary injunction was granted ex parte. Notices appear to have been directed and parties have entered appearance and respondents even filed their written statement. I.A. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(3)KarLJ634
1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 6-4-1991 passed in O.S. No. 3 of 1987 on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chintamani. In passing the said Judgment and decree the Civil Judge was pleased to decree the suit in part. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri P. Subba Rao and the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao. I have also perused the case records including the case records of the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, hereinafter referred to for convenience as the Civil Judge. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-- The appellants herein are the L.Rs of the original plaintiff by name K.R. Rajalakshmi Devi. The appellants 1 and 2 are her sons and the appellant 3 is her husband. The original plaintiff-Rajalakshmi Devi died on 26-12-1987 during the pendency of the suit. She had filed originally O.S. No. 5 of 1973 before the Court of Civil Judge, Kolar, as against h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR3595; 1996(7)KarLJ712
H.N. Narayan, J.1. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.6.1991 alleging that the defendant is the owner in possession of the suit house, and agreed to sell the same for consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- and executed the deed of Agreement dated 10.6.1991 exhibit P-1. Defendant received an advance of Rs. 30,000/- on the date of agreement agreeing to receive the balance of consideration within three months from the date of agreement and to execute the sale deed. But the 'defendant failed to execute the sale deed inspite of repeated requests. The defendant according to plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract even though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence the suit for specific performance.2. Defendant has not disputed execution of the agreement exhibit P-1 and the advance of Rs. 30,000/-. He has also not disputed that he had agreed to receive the balance of Rs. 1,01,000/- wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1996)136CTR(Kar)513; ILR1996KAR2837; [1997]223ITR112(KAR); [1997]223ITR112(Karn)
Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. The Tribunal, Bangalore, has at the instance of the Revenue, referred to this Court the following three questions, for opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 99 lakhs agreed to be paid by the assessee to GEC for premature termination of its distributor's agreement is an allowable deduction, as revenue expenditure (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the protocol dt. 28th Nov., 1972 had not been superseded by cl. 13 of the agreement dt. 10th Feb., 1972 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the agreement to pay Rs. 99 lakhs as compensation to GEC was reasonable and was one made on account of commercial expediency ?' 2. The assessee hereinafter referred to as 'MICO' for short, is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Spark Plugs and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 2.4.2011 passed in O.S.No.4071/2002 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH 10), decreeing the suit for partition and mesne profits, decreeing the suit for partition against the defendants 1 to 3 therein and dismissing the suit against the defendant nos. 4 and 5.) 1. This appeal is filed by the defendants in the suit. 2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience. 3. The plaintiff is said to be the daughter of the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are said to be the brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs grand-father, T.N. Mariswamy, is said to have died in the year 1947, in a police firing incident, when a curfew was imposed to quell the several freedom fighters, of whom Mariswamy was said to be one, agitating for the independence of India from British Rule. It transpir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1978]112ITR12(KAR); [1978]112ITR12(Karn); 1977(2)KarLJ247
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1966-67, the relevant previous year being the year ending March 31,1966. 2. The assessee is a firm dealing in iron ore. In the return filed for the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee has shown its total income as Rs. 65,613. This figure was based on the profit and losss account of the firm. Later, it filed a revised return showing a total income of Rs. 20,436 only. This reduction of income of from Rs. 65,613 to Rs. 20,436 was primarily due to the fact that in the revised return the assessee had claimed as revenue expenditure a sum of Rs. 55,146 being the cost of roads laid by the assessee for transportation of ore, notwithstanding of ore, notwithstanding the fact that in its profit and loss statement, the said sum had been shown under the head 'Capital Asset' in the...
Tag this Judgment!