Karnataka Court March 1975 Judgments
Azra Abdulla Vs. Silton Hotel, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Kant225; 1975(2)KarLJ316
1. The appellant is the decree-holder and the respondent is the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder obtained an order in H. R. C. 30/68 for possession of the premises in the occupation of the judgment-debtor and filed execution 448/73 in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, for delivery of possession. The judgment-debtor contended that the order is inexecutable. The Execution Court Over-ruled the objections of the judgment-debtor and allowed the application of the decree-holder praying for permission to break open the lock with police help. Thereupon, the judgment-debtor filed Execution Appeal No. 11/73 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. The lower appellate court upheld the objections of the judgment-debtor and held that the order of eviction is inexecutable. It also held that there is a waiver on the part of the decree-holder and that therefore she could not execute the order of eviction. It accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed t...
Tag this Judgment!A.D. Chaudhary Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1975
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas639(Kar); ILR1976KAR505
Venkataramiah, J. 1. This appeal is presented under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, against the order of the learned single judge dated February. 3, 1975, passed in Company Petition No. 1 of 1975 on the file of this court, dismissing the petition. The appellant was the petitioner in that petition. He filed it under section. 186 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the basis of the following allegations : The appellant is a shareholder of the Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') which was incorporated in 1936 under the Mysore companies Act, 1917, and is now governed by the Act. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 1,50,00,000 divided into 15,00,000 shares of Rs. 10 each. The subscribed capital is Rs. 1,23,62,120 of which shares of the value of Rs. 58,980 have been forfeited. The company was started with the object of establishing and running a paper mill. The company owns and is now running a paper mill at ...
Tag this Judgment!Official Liquidator, High Court of Karnataka Vs. B. Lakshmikutty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1975
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas411(Kar); 1975(2)KarLJ123
ORDERVenkataramiah, J. 1. Company Application No. 241 of 1973, in Company Petition No. 9 of 1969, is filed by the official liquidator under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for an order directing the respondent to pay him the sum of Rs. 705.57 with interest from August 9, 1968. Company application No. 174 of 1974, in Company Petition No. 6 of 1972, is filed under section 446(2) for an order directing the respondent therein to pay Rs. 1,038.43 with interest from February 26, 1972. Company application No. 33 of 1974, in Company Petition No. 16 of 1973, is filed by the additional liquidator for the issue of a direction to the respondents therein to pay the sums claimed from them. 2. The companies in liquidation in all these cases were carrying on chit fund business. In the course of their business they had allowed the respondents to draw monies in some of the chit fund accounts against pronotes executed by them on the understating that if t...
Tag this Judgment!Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Gwalior Transport (P.) ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Kant202; 1975(2)KarLJ104
ORDER1. This petition under Section 115. Civil P. C. is by the plaintiffs in O. S. 123/1970 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge. Mysore. They are aggrieved by an order made therein directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.2. It is unnecessary to set out the facts leading up to the filing of the suit as in my view, a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of a petition of this nature clearly deserves to be upheld. The contention urged on behalf of the respondents is that any order directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper Court had been clearly made appealable under Clause (1) of Rule 1 of Order 43, Civil P. C. and therefore. one of the essential ingredients for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil P. C. relative to the absence of a right of appeal remains unfulfilled.3. On behalf of the petitioners. Sri K. C. Mehta. the learned counsel, while conceding that the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Suneel Keerthi Vs. the Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1975
Reported in: 1975(2)KarLJ121
1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 (which is hereinafter called 'the Act'), and of Rule 7 of the 'Rules to regulate contempt proceedings in the High Court of Karnataka' is called into question. 2. The petitioner is a land holder at Moodabidabidri, South Kanara District. He has some pending litigation before the Court of Munsif, Karkala, as against Respondent 7, in respect of the tenancy claimed by the latter. According to him, respondents 4 to 7 have committed contempt of the said Court. Respondent 4 is the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, respondent 5 is a Member of the legislative Assembly and respondent 6 is the Hon'ble Minister for Stale for Small Scale Industries. The petitioner wants to prosecute them for contempt. For that purpose, he approached the Advocate General with an application under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act seeking his consent to move this court for taking action against the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Thalibai F. JaIn and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Assessment-4, Hubli ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1975
Reported in: [1975]101ITR1(KAR); [1975]101ITR1(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the validity of the orders made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'. 2. The facts in all these cases are similar and, for the sake of convenience, I set out those leading up to the petition in W.P. No. 6660 of 1974. The petitioner herein is a lady. She filed voluntary returns of income for the assessment that it was her previous savings inclusive of the gifts given to her at the time of her marriage. She was not assessed to tax previously. Along with the returns of income she filed a letter dated October 20, 1972, which reads as follows : 'With reference to the above, I beg to request you that out of my previous savings I am now having cash of Rs. 31,500 with me and that I may be assessed as under : Y.E. Asst. Year : Rs.21-10-68 69-70 7,5009-11-69 70-71 7,80030-10-70 71-72 8,00019-10-71 72-73 8,200----...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Guruva Poojari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1708
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, S.K. Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1973 acquitting the respondent who was the appellant therein of the offence punishable under Section 13 read with Section 32(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The respondent-accused was prosecuted for having committed the said offence in C. C. No. 1095 of 1972 on the file of the Additional Munsiff-cum-I Class Magistrate, Udipi, South Kanara. He was convicted and sentenced. He preferred Cr. A. No. 75 of 1973 before the Sessions Judge, S.K. Mangalore wherein he was acquitted. He will be, in the course of this judgment, referred to as the accused.3. The prosecution case is that at about 3.45 P. M. on 7-9-1972, P.W. 3 K. A. Kariappa, the Excise Inspector accompanied by his staff and panchas including P.W. 2 Sridhar, raided the house bearing No. 1-27, situated in Kodavoor village, belo...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayalakshmi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1975
Reported in: [1975]100ITR648(KAR); [1975]100ITR648(Karn); 1976(1)KarLJ407
Chandrashekhar, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has, under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), referred to this court the following question of law : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the long-term capital gains arising on the sale of her house property at Bombay ?' 2. The material facts relevant to the above question are briefly these : The assessee had purchased a flat in Bombay in the year 1962. She had leased it to her husband on a monthly rent of rupees seven hundred and was also living with him therein. In the year April 1, 1969, to March 31, 1970, (relevant to the assessment year 1970-71) she sold that flat for Rs. 80,000. About the same time, she purchased another flat in Bombay for Rs. 63,000. The Income...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›