Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(59)ECC54; 1998(98)ELT88(Kar)
ORDER1. In this petition for a certiorari the petitioner calls in question the validity of Trade Notice No. 230/88 issued by the Collector, Central Excise, Bangalore, and the order dated 20th of July 1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise approving the classification list submitted by the petitioner but disallowing the exemption claimed by it on goods manufactured on Job Work Basis. Consequent show cause and demand notices issued by the respondents have also been called in question. 2. The petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit engaged in the manufacture of machine parts. These parts are manufactured by the petitioner on its own account as also on 'Job Work Basis' making use of raw materials supplied to it by the parties. In terms of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1st of March 1986, excisable goods manufactured by a Small Scale Industrial Unit are eligible for a concessional slab rate of duty prescribed therein. The petitioner it is not in dispute qualifies for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1283; 1997(3)KarLJ683
Kumar Rajarathnam, J.1. The appellant was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. She sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the 3rd respondent in case No. SC/ST 174/87-88 and also for a writ of declaration to declare that the order of the 4th respondent dated 7.11.1987 as illegal and without jurisdiction.2. The facts very briefly are: The petitioner's mother one Smt. Arundi Thimmakka had taken certain land measuring 5 acres in S.No. 21/6 of Akkathangerakatte village in Honnali taluk, on lease in the year 1969-70 and that she was a tenant in occupation on the appointed day under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. She also made an application for grant of occupancy rights in her favour. The Land Tribunal passed an order in favour of the said Arundi Thimmakka by its order dated 5th May 1976.3. This land was granted under Darkast in favour of Dasa Bhovi, father of Appanna Bhovi, the first respondent herein in proceedings No. M4.DCP. 19/47-48 dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. Each of these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises the same question. Since the facts, issues and questions of law raised are identical, these petitions are clubhed, heard together and disposed off by this common order.2. The reliefs sought in these petitions are mainly for a declaration to declare that Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board is a local area and the entry of scheduled goods into that area would not attract charging provisions under Entry Tax Act, since the Karnataka Ordinance No. 2 of 1992 which came into effect from 1-5-1992 having lapsed by efflux of time, the notifications issued pursuant to Section 3(1) of the Act to effectuate the charge with respect to items coming under First Schedule to the Act having become inoperative, the notifications have been rendered redundant and nun-operative, thatthe notification dated 30-7-1992 inserting Entry 81 which brought to effectuate the charge relating to Entry 80 of the First Schedule to the Act is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1998)ACC257; 1997ACJ825; AIR1997Kant168; (1997)IILLJ523Kant
1. The short point that arises in these appeals, filed by the insurer, is whether the insurer who has issued a policy under the Motor Vehicles Act can be made liable to pay the interest awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. It is contended on behalf of the insurers, who are the appellants in these appeals, that under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is similar to Section 95(1) of M. V. Act, 1939, in respect of employees of insured travelling in the vehicle they are required to cover only the liability to pay compensation payable under the Act, that under Section 4-A(3) of the Act apart from the compensation payable, the Commissioner can award interest if the employer commits default in paying the lo compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, that the award of interest is by way of penalty, that this interest is payable o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR2257; (1997)ILLJ803Kant
Eswara Prasad, J.1. This appeal is by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short), questioning the award of compensation of Rs. 23,32,900/- with simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment of M.V.C. No. 353 of 1983 to the first respondent. 2. A bus belonging to the Corporation bearing NO. MYF 700 driven by the second respondent was involved in an accident at 6 p.m. on December 6, 1983 near Shivaji Talkies traffic signal. The bus hit an autorickshaw bearing NO. KLC 992 and the scooter bearing NO. CAE 2956, driven by the first respondent. The passenger in the autorickshaw was thrown out and sustained injury. The first respondent and his wife who was riding on the pillion fell down. The first respondent sustained serious fractures with bleeding injuries and his wife sustained minor injuries and they were removed to the Victoria Hospital and were shifted to St. Philomina's Hospital on the next day, where the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR2043; 1996(3)KarLJ134
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. This landlord's revision is directed against an order of dismissal of eviction petition filed by the petitioner-landlord in HRC No. 4923 of 1980 on the file of the Small Cause Judge, Bangalore.2. Petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) claiming to be the owner of the petition schedule premises having purchased the same under a registered Sale Deed dt. 10.9.1979. According to him respondent-firm is a tenant of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 110/-. He has communicated the fact of purchase of the premises from his previous owner and that his vendor also sent a notice of attornment to respondent No. 1. It is further stated that the respondent is in arrears of rent and is liable to be evicted for committing default in payment of rent. It is the further case of the petitioner that he purchased the petition schedule premises for the sole purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1996(74)FLR2407]; 1996(2)KarLJ373
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. Petitioner who is a worker with the respondent-Corporation has challenged an order dated 8-5-1995 whereby she has been transferred from Channapatna to Kanakapura. The main contention raised is that the petitioner is a member of the Executive Committee of the Union which represents the rights of 550 workers and that since she had raised certain issues and demands of behalf of the workers and since she is an active worker of the union that the management has hit back at her and transferred her out of Channapatna. Petitioner's learned Advocate has relied on the charter of demands and certain other documents that are annexed to the petition and he submits that because of the fact that the management did not concede these demands, that the management has now taken to conciliation. He states that this is the main reason why the petitioner has been victimised. He also submits that even though there is no specific provision or agreement between the management and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR1014; 1995(2)KarLJ6
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate; The petitioner's grievance is that, on the death of his wife namely, Smt. Shantawa moved an application for mutation under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as he has been one of the legal heirs of Smt. Shantawa. The petitioner's case is that, the Village Accountant is the prescribed authority for the purpose of receiving the information in oral or in writing in the matters of succession and like. The petitioner's case is that, such application was moved by the petitioner in writing but the respondent No. 3 has passed an order dated 7.11.94 in Annexure-E to the Writ Petition and by that order it was observed that, in view of the Circular issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the prescribed authority cannot receive the applications and the application should be moved through Tahsildar and thereby he has refused to accept the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR224; 1994(5)KarLJ473
..... or engineering contracts, the effect of these requisites are : non-arbitrariness and fair-play would mean - (a) acting in accordance with the accepted and prescribed norms/standards/conditions, in a rational, relevant and non-discriminatory manner; (b) giving equal opportunity to all tenderers; (c) considering eligible tenderers and ignoring ineligible tenderers; and ..... by giving them equal opportunity to revise their tenders and such action would be non-arbitrary, fair and in consonance with the requirements of giving due weight to the legitimate expectation of the affected party. the relevant portions are extracted below: 'in contractual sphere as in all other state actions, the state ..... legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1995)IILLJ1243Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned counsel on both sides Rule. By consent of the parties, matter taken up for hearing.2. It is seldom that the Court will interfere in a case relating to a transfer unless it is visibly demonstrated that the order is punitive or more importantly that the case involves mala fides, vindictiveness or gross abuse of authority. The law takes note of the tact that for administrative reasons it may be necessary to cost an employee at a different work station. Undoubtedly such movement does result in a degree of dislocation and difficulty and it is therefore that certain well defined guidelines have emerged whereby it is essential that the transfer should be demonstrated to have been undertaken for an administrative exigency and in the public interest and conversely, that the order is not motivated nor can it be assailed on the grounds of mala fides, The Courts, particularly in exercise of writ jurisdiction were hitherto extremely slow in matters of interfer...
Tag this Judgment!