Karnataka Court May 1975 Judgments
Kamaxi Kom Bhikku Shetty Vs. Vaman Thippayya Bhattageri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant3; 1975(2)KarLJ138
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of an order made on an application under Order XXI, Rule 90 for setting aside a re-sale and is concerned with the scope of the word 'forthwith' occurring in Order XXI, Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. A few more facts are necessary to appreciate the contention urged. In execution of a decree, against the petitioner, his immovable property was brought for sale at 10-45 A. M. on 27th July, 1966. There were several intending purchasers. One Mahabaleshwar offered the highest bid of Rupees 10,000/-. The bid was accepted, but the purchaser did not deposit 25 per cent of he sale price as required under Order XXI, Rule 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter was brought to the notice of the Court. The Court cancelled the sale and directed a re-sale. At that time, the decree holder, the respondent before me, came forward with a prayer for leave to bid and set-off under Order 21, Rule 72. The leave was granted and the sale was held at abou...
Tag this Judgment!Gurappa Veerappa Mensinakai Vs. the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC236(Kar)
ORDERVenkataramiah, J.1. The petitioner was a partner of a firm by name M/s. M. R. Ingalhalli, which was a dealer within the meaning of the expression as given in the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). After the firm was dissolved, the authority under the Act passed an order of assessment in respect of transactions which the firm had carried on before it was dissolved. In view of the decision of this court in S. S. Navalgi v. Commercial Tax Officer, Jamkhandi [[1971] 28 S.T.C. 580], it was assumed by all concerned that no tax was recoverable on the basis of the said order of assessment. Consequently, the penalty payable under section 13(2) of the Act was also assumed to be not recoverable. Later on, the State Legislature passed Act 5 of 1972, which provided for validation of all orders of assessment passed after the firms were dissolved in respect of periods during which they were carrying on business. The relevant part of section 13 of that Act, which vali...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimhiah and ors. Vs. Y.H. Venkataramanappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant43; 1975(2)KarLJ446
Venkataswaar, J.1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96, Civil P. C., arises out of a suit filed under Section 92, Civil P. C. Being aggrieved by the decree of dismissal of suit made by the District Judge, Bangalore, in O. S. 54/65, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.2. The material allegations in the pleadings, briefly stated, are as follows:-There is a shrine with some land surrounding it dedicated to the deity Voni Anjaneya Swami in Bangalore, belonging to the Devanga (weavers) Community of the said city, having been constructed by the members of the said community. All the parties to the suit belong to the said community. The deity was and is being worshipped by the members of the said section of the public. In these circumstances, the property of the temple constituted a public religious and charitable trust constituted by the Devanga community and no individual of that community had any private rights over it. The surrounding open spaces have been granted by the Corp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›