Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-14-1995
Reported in : AIR1996Kant26; ILR1995KAR2073; 1995(3)KarLJ531
1. An inter-related though important facet of law touching the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the Limitation Act has come up for decision in this appeal. Briefly stated, the controversy centres around the question as to whether the State which is obliged to make a reference to the Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in a case where an application for enhanced compensation has been filed, fails to do so for a considerable period of time, can thereafter object to the Court considering the reference on the ground that it is filed beyond the period of limitation. Though it would appear prima facie incongruous that the defaulting party namely the State should at all be permitted to object on the ground of limitation when that delay has occurred due to the default on the part of its own officers, and that, therefore, normally they should be estopped from canvassing any bar, the situation is far more complex because of certainprovisions of law and several judicial decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-12-1995
Reported in : ILR1995KAR2010
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The first appellant claims to be the inventor of Patent No. 165069/10414 dated 7-7-1987 used as Ultrasonic Metal Hardness Tester (for short UMHT) and the second appellant is given the exclusive licence to exploit the said Patent. The second appellant claims to be manufacturing and selling the said Hardness Tester for several years. The second respondent is stated to be an employee with the second appellant and had access to the confidential information in relation to the said Hardness Tester. After the second respondent ceased to be the employee of the second appellant, the second respondent attempted to utilise the said information or use the same contrary to the terms of the contract of service in developing other Hardness Tester. Inasmuch as the appellant could not file any suit until the patent was sealed, he applied for such sealing on 7-7-1987 and the patent was actually sealed on 23-2-1990 as provided under Section 24 of the Patents Act, 1970 (for short th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-31-1995
Reported in : ILR1996KAR209; [1996]219ITR54(KAR); [1996]219ITR54(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ54
G.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. . (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor-company') was a company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of printing and allied machinery. Under an agreement dt. 16th Feb., 1995, the said company agreed to buy property bearing No. 18A, First Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. A copy of the said agreement is marked as Annex.'A'. Thereafter, it appears the said company and the vendors filed Form No. 37-I with the first respondent on 28th Feb., 1995, in terms of s. 269UC in Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961, seeking a certificate, in terms of s. 269UL(1) of the said Act from the Appropriate Authority, that it has no objection to the transfer of the said property for an amount equal to the apparent consideration therefor as stated in the agreement. The apparent consideration shown in the agreement is Rs. 39 lakhs. It is stated in the petition that a sum of Rs. 7,80,000 was paid as advance to the vendors leaving a balance of Rs. 31,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-30-1995
Reported in : ILR1996KAR770; 1995(6)KarLJ403
ORDERRaveendran, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. 26187 to 26198/1992 is the State Road Transport Undertaking ('KSRTC' for short). Petitioner challenges the order dated 2.4.1992 (Annexure-A) of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) directing grant of renewal of stage carriage permits to the third respondent in each of the said Petitions. The main Question that arises for Consideration in these cases is whether and in what circumstances traversing a notified route for a short distance, can be termed as intersection and not overlapping.2. The third respondent in each of the twelve Petitions sought renewal of their stage carriage permits relating to routes which included Mysore to KRS, Mysore to Bannur, Mysore to Honnavar, Mysore to Malavalli, Mysore to Kirangur Cross, Mysore to Tumkur, Bannur to Malavalli, KRS to Bylur and Saggyam to KRS. The line of travel of these routes traversed all or any of the following three sections of notified routes: (i) Mysore Bus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-22-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Kant290; 1996(6)KarLJ464
ORDER1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the two petitioners, who are Advocates of this Court, as public interest litigation seeking the issuance of (a) writ of prohibition or order or direction against respondents 3 to 4 directing them not to exhibit Kannada film 'Kona Eedaite' (which means in English that He Buffalo gives birthto a calf), on 2-2-1995, or on any subsequent dates in any film Cinema, theatre and Celluloid for general public either in the State of Karnataka, or anywhere within the territory of India, as well as, for directing respondents 1 and 2 to take back/withdraw the certificate/permission for exhibition of the aforesaid Kannada Film and for costs.While, moving the writ petition, the petitioners also prayed for an ex parte interim order directing respondents not to exhibit the film on 2-2-1995 or on subsequent dates pending decision or disposal of this writ petition by the Court after witnessing and examining finding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-24-1995
Reported in : (1995)129CTR(Kar)217; ILR1995KAR2366; [1995]215ITR758(KAR); [1995]215ITR758(Karn); 1995(39)KarLJ393
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners call in question the constitutional validity of sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989. 2. Briefly stated, section 234A makes a provision for the payment of simple interest calculated at the rate of 24 per cent. per annum by an assessee, who commits default in furnishing a return of income under section 139(1) or section 139(4) or in response to a notice sent to him under section 142(1) of the Act. The amount at which such interest is payable and the period for which the same is payable is set out in the provision itself, reference whereto shall be made in detail a little later. 3. Section 234B of the Act, on the other hand, provides for payment of interest by an assessee, who even though liable to pay advance tax under section 208 of the Act, has either failed to pay such tax or the advance tax paid under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-04-1995
Reported in : ILR1995KAR2664; 1995(6)KarLJ588
ORDERMohan Kumar, J. 1. This case illustrates how otherwise a speedy remedy can be delayed and defeated by the deliberate actions. The petitioner which is a partnership firm had employed the 1st respondent herein as a clearing, packing and canvassing agent on a consolidated salary of Rs. 140/-. His services were terminated with effect from 31.8.1964. The present proceedings started challenging the termination. The 1st respondent challenged his termination as illegal and sought for appropriate remedy under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The office of the petitioner-firm was situated in Mangalore in South Kanara District which was formerly part of the erstwhile Madras State. The said appeal was preferred invoking Section 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Madras Act') before the Competent Authority then competent to entertain the appeal. Annexure-B is the appeal filed by the 1st respondent in September 1964 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-16-1995
Reported in : 1995(5)KarLJ531; (1996)IILLJ1143Kant
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner calls in question his compulsory retirement from the service of the respondent bank in consequence of a Disciplinary enquiry held against him. He also challenges the vires of Regulations 3 and 24 of the Indian Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations 1976 (for short 'the Conduct Regulations'), and the legality of his suspension pending enquiry. The facts in the background are brief and may be stated first. 2. The petitioner was working as a manager of the New Timber Yard Layout Branch of the respondent bank at Bangalore. He was served with a charge-sheet accusing him of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations. The petitioner's reply to the charges was found unsatisfactory resulting in the initiation of a formal enquiry. The inquiry officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the charges fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-16-1995
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3434
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner calls in question his compulsory retirement from the service of the Respondent-Bank in consequence of a Disciplinary Enquiry held against him. He also challenges the vires of Regulations 3 and 24 of the Indian-Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1976, (for short the Conduct Regulations) and the legality of his suspension pending enquiry. The facts in the background are brief and may be stated first.2. The petitioner was working as Manager of the New Timber Yard Layout Branch of the Respondent-Bank at Bangalore. He was served with a Chargesheet accusing him of misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations. The petitioner's reply to the charges was found unsatisfactory resulting in the initiation of a formal enquiry. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the charges fra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-03-1995
Reported in : [1996]222ITR799(KAR); [1996]222ITR799(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ204
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. These two references have been made by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, at the instance of the assessee. In ITRC No. 3/1995 the Tribunal has referred the following three questions relevant to asst. yr. 1982-83 for the opinion of this Court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale of shade trees would give rise to capital gains, liable to tax under s. 45 of the Act (2) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was justified in determining the cost of purchase of the shade trees sold at Rs. 1,50,000 (3) Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of s. 54E of the Act, on investment made in Rural Development Bonds out of the income of the preceding year ?' In ITRC No. 117/1993 the Tribunal has referred the following two questions relevant to asst. yr. 1984-85 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was ri...
Tag this Judgment!