Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1981(8)ELT690(Kar); 1980(2)KarLJ39
1. This Writ Petition is filed by India Tobacco Company Limited (a company duly incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956), and by one of its shareholders. The Petitioners herein shall be referred to as the Company in the course of this order for convenience. The respondents are the Union of India represented by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue), the Superintendent of Central Excise, Concurrent Assessment and Inspection Group having his office in the Company's factory at Bangalore, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, III Division, having his office at Bangalore City and the Appellate Collector of Central Excise at Madras having his office at Madras. 2. The Company is a manufacturer of tobacco products. The company has several factories in different parts of India. One of its factories is situated at Bangalore and tobacco products like cigarettes, tobacco and other tobacco products manufac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1975KAR481; 1975(1)KarLJ419
ORDER1. The petitioners are exhibitors of touring cinemas. They had been granted licences for running touring cinemas in different places. They had applied for re-grant of such licences for continuing to run the touring cinemas in those respective places. The licensing authority declined to re-grant such licence to the petitioner in W. P. 4219 of 1974. The applications of other petitioners for re-grant of their respective licences, are pending before the Licensing Authority.2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for striking down Rules 11 and 16 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (First Amendment) Rules, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Rules) as unconstitutional. The petitioner in W. P. No. 4219 of 1974 has also prayed for quashing the order of the Licensing Authority declining to re-grant the licence to him. The petitioners have also Brayed for issue of mandamus directingthe Licensing Authorities to consider and deci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1996Kant348; ILR1996KAR1957; 1996(3)KarLJ114
ORDER1. Though this matter was listed for preliminary hearing, the same was taken-up for final disposal by consent of both sides.2. This is a revision petition filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 10182/85, on the file of the IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under Sec. 115 of C.P.C., challenging the validity of the order passed by the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on 27-2-96 in O.S. No. 10182/85, rejecting the request of the petitioner's Counsel to exhibit an affidavit sworn to by P.W. 1 (the respondent/plaintiff). The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10182/85, on the file of the IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The plaintiff has filed the suif for a declaration declaring the plaintiff and his family members have a right of common enjoyment of the suit schedule property and usufruct from the coconut and other fruit yielding trees, directing the defendants to pay regularly the plaintiffs share of usufruct from coconut and fruit trees and on their failure, the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002]126STC351(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. Following questions have been raised by the assessee :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the appellate authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Government revenue ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the judicious discretion of the appellate authority could be subject for consideration under the revisionary powers envisaged under the Section 22-A of the Act ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent is vested with the jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ?4. Whether the respondent was right in ignoring the fact that the assessing authority had examined the movement of consignment without examining the effect of the letters as the whole. The appellate authority examining the effect of the letters in its entirety on the movement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1987]165ITR326(KAR); [1987]165ITR326(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act NO. XLIII of 1961) ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 9 lakhs was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that no direction could be given to bring to tax the capital gains in these proceeding 2. In order to appreciate the questions referred to us, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts that are not in dispute and found by the Tribunal. 3. Prior to June 20, 1968, the assessee, a partnership firm of partners engaged in the business of mining, held ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR2936
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 14-11-1984 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (Respondent No. 1) and also against the order dated 15-7-1985 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division, Mysore (Respondent No. 2) apart from challenging the final statement dated 25-7-1985 as well as the notification dated 2-9-1985 of respondent-1.2. Paul Castelino executed a settlement deed dated 16-5-1931 settling landed property in favour of Martin Castelino measuring 30 cents of land in Sy.No. 77/13; 19 cents of land in Sy.No. 77/14; 52 cents of land in Sy.No. 262-1; 1.95 acres of land in Sy.No. 262-4 and 11 cents of land in Sy.No. 249-2 in the village Padavu, situated within the Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. In the schedule to the said settlement deed is shown a house with thatched roofing and cattle-shed. On 22-5-1970, the properties were partitioned between the brothers. The properties were allotted to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant122; (1997)IILLJ239Kant
ORDER1. This set of five petitions relate to an order of rustication passed by the Principal of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar College, Bangalore against the six petitioners on November 20, 1995. The petitioners are all Medical Students prosecuting their studies with the college in question and the respondent - Principal had passed the order on the ground that the petitioners have involved themselves in serious act of misconduct/indisclpline. There are certain other proceedings that have been instituted against these petitioners with which we are not immediately concerned. The issues involved in this case are of deep significance insofar as they concern two vital areas the first of them being the question as to what should be the attitude or role of the Courts in cases relating to action that follows proven misconduct and secondly, certain aspects of priority insofar as whether at all the Courts should interfere in these cases and in those of the ones where the Court is required to take judicial n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1985Kant166; ILR1984KAR193; 1984(2)KarLJ35
Murlidhar Rao, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Bellary, in H.R.C. Appeal No. 6 of 1973, filed against the order dated 29-1-1973. The brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner-Papinayakanahalli Jadiyappa filed a petition for eviction under Section 21(l)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of Door No. 297, ward No. 10 situated at Hospet, Bellary District. His case was, that he had purchased the property, under a registered sale deed, dated 14-6-1966, from its original owner Veerabasamma and that since he was carrying on his business of hardware articles, in two small bunks, leased to him, by the City Municipal Council, Hospet, and as the said premises were unsuitable, inadequate and insufficient for his business and further as the rents in respect of the two bunks were being periodically enhanced by the City Municipal Council, Hospet, he required the premises to carry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2728; 2002(6)KarLJ506
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 23-8-2001 in Rev. P. No. 103/1999-2000 affirming the order dated 29-1-1999 passed in R. A. No. 39/96-97 passed by the 2nd respondent. Further, he sought for a direction to the respondents to enter their names in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and issue RTCs and other records to the petitioners. They also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners for grant of occupancy rights which is available on the record of the 1st respondent.2. The petitioners' late husband one Sri Muninagappa had purchased an agricultural land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 68/1 (old) and New No. 133/1 situated at Kowdenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South (Addl. Taluk), Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, under the registered sale deed dated 22-4-1950. The husban...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1993(43)ECC174; 1993LC48(Karnataka); 1993(68)ELT292(Kar); ILR1993KAR1548
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The first petitioner is the Company, of which the second petitioner is a share holder and Director. The petitioners challenge the assessment order marked Annexure-C which is made on the Bill of Entry for home consumption under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, (`the Act' for short). 2. The first relief sought is for a direction to respondents-5 and 6 to disclose the date on which the official gazette dated 15-12-1990, containing Notification 285 and 286/90 was put on sale to the public. There is also a prayer to declare Section 15 of the Act, in so far as it permits the levy and collection of import duty based on the rate of duty prevailing at the time of filing of the Bill of Entry, as ultra vires the provisions of Entry 83 of List I to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Another relief sought is for a direction to allow the refund application of the first petitioner. 3. The relevant facts are that the first petitioner is a manufactur...
Tag this Judgment!