Karnataka Court July 1978 Judgments
Dhanji Kalyanji and Co. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1978
Reported in: 1978(2)KarLJ117; [1978]42STC267(Kar)
ORDERVenkataramiah, J. 1. The petitioner was an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') during the assessment year 1965-66. While the order of assessment under the State Act was passed, the purchase turnover of groundnuts amounting to Rs. 5,58,408 and the purchase turnover of cotton amounting to Rs. 60,387 were not assessed even though they were assessable under sub-section (4) of section 5 of the State Act on the ground that the said goods, which were declared goods, had been sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce and, therefore, they were liable to be exempted from assessment in view of the decision of this Court in Munshi Abdul Rahiman & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Hubli ([1967] 20 S.T.C. 89). The assessee had not paid tax under the Central Sales Tax Act even though the goods in question had been, admittedly, sold in the course of inter-State trade. After the decision in the case of Munshi Abdul Rah...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Rao Swami Rao Kulkarni and anr. Vs. Bheema Rao Swami Rao Kulk ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant33; ILR1979KAR408
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to be referred to as the Code, is directed against the order dated 7-4-1977 made on I. A. No. 2 in Original Suit No. 26 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli, granting permission to one Khandappa Devappa Dhumale to be added as defendant No. 3 in the suit.2. Petitioners in the revision petition are defendants 1 and 2 in the original suit, a suit for partition instituted against them by respondent No. 1 herein as plaintiff, Respondent No.2 herein is the person who is allowed to be added as defendant 3 in the suit. Whether the Court below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it under Rule 10 of O. I. of the Code in ordering addition of the applicant in I. A. No. II as defendant 3 in a suit for partition having regard to the claim put forward by him that he was in actual enjoyment of the suit lands being in possession of them as a tenant entitled to the benefits confe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›