Karnataka Court August 1978 Judgments
The Deputy General Manager and Divi. Controller, Karnataka State Road ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant79
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal gives rise to a short question of law, viz., whether the Claims Tribunals, after the Amending Act 56 of 1969, can entertain and try claims with regard to damages to properties only?2. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Division, Hubli, by its Deputy General Manager (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) instituted a claim against the respondents in that petition for damages to the bus caused by truck bearing registration No. MYD 5057 on 3-4-1972. It is the case of the Corporation that the bus was going on the main road when suddenly a truck came by the by-road and the driver of the bus (PW 2) on seeing the truck coming with high speed, halted the bus but even so the truck came and dashed against the right broad side of the bus causing damages to it, and the damages were calculated to be at Rupees 1,345.66 paise. For claiming these damages, the Corporation instituted a petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herei...
Tag this Judgment!Channabasappa Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ185
ORDERM.S. Nesargi, J.1. In these two petitions common question of law arises and hence they are being disposed of by a common order.2. Cr. R. P. 243 of 1978 arises out of the order dated 20-6-1978 passed by the J. M. F.C. Koppal, in C. C. No. 184 of 1978 and Cr. R. P. No. 244 of 1978 arises out of the order dated 20-6-1978 passed by the J. M. F. C Koppal, in C. C. No. 185 of 1978.3. In C. C. No. 184 of 1978 the Regional Transport Officer, Raichur, alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 12 (1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as he had, as a registered owner or otherwise in possession or control of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. MYR 4566 (lorry) without paying tax as per the provisions of the Act for the quarter ending on 30-6-1976. In C. C. No. 185 of 1978 the Regional Transport Officer, Raichur, complained that the petitioner had committed an offence punishable under Section 12 ...
Tag this Judgment!Meghdoot Electrical Corporation Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR400(KAR); [1979]116ITR400(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. Because common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in these two cases, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The assesses in these two cases is a firm known as 'M/s. Meghdoot Electrical Corporation' which was dissolved on January 17, 1968. The assessment years are 1967-68 and 1968-69. Before it was dissolved, the assesses firm was engaged in the business of manufacture of electrical components. During the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, it had been allowed certain development rebate under s. 33 of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On its dissolution on January 17, 1968, the assets of the firm were distributed amongst the four partners of that firm. The assets in respect of which development rebate had been allowed were, however, allotted to the share of K. N. Narayan, one of the erstwhile partners. On February 1, 1968, K. N. Narayan entered into a new partnership agreement with G. N. Lakshmipathy, who was also a...
Tag this Judgment!Gangaram and anr. Vs. Kamalabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant106
Sabhahit, J.1. These three appeals and cross-objections arise out of the same accident, that occurred on 9-9-1973 at about 8-30 A. M. On the Chikodi Mudalgi Road near Bhandiwad cross. The original respondent-2 Babasab was driving the taxi, according to the claimants, in as rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the front right tyre burst and the taxi left the road went on its off-side and turned somersault, as a result of which the two passengers in the taxi namely, Patil and Shinde died on the spot. M.V.C. No. 49/1973 was instituted by the widow and minor children of Patil claiming compensation of Rs. 70,000 from the respondents. The widow and minor sons of Shinde instituted M.V.C. No. 50/1973 claiming compensation of Rs. 60,000 from the respondents. The respondents are the same in both cases, respondent-1 is the owner of the car and respondent-2 is the driver. The respondents contested the claim. According to them, the accident was inevitable. The tyres were new. The front ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Asea Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR703(KAR); [1979]118ITR703(Karn)
Chandrasekhar, C.J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following two questions of law : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the difference in the rupee value of the machinery calculated with reference to the devaluation of the rupee was part of the actual cost of the plant and machinery for purposes of allowance of depreciation and development rebate (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of computing the quantum of deficiency for assessment year 1967-68 liable to be carried forward and set off in assessment year 1968-69 under section 80J, the computation of capital has to be made under rule 19A and not under rule 19 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ?' 2. The first of the aforesaid questions had also been referred to this co...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Venkatakrishnaiah and anr. Vs. S.A. Sathyakumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Kant220; ILR1979KAR334
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is instituted by the original respondents 1 and 2 against the order dated 30-7-1976 by the District Judge, Chickmagalur in Guardian and Wards Case No. 16 of 1975 on his file allowing the petition of the father for custody of the child.2. Sri S. A. Satyakumar, presented an application to the District Court under Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') praying for custody of his minor son Ravishankar. He has averred in the petition that Ravishankar was born on 7-8-1972 and that his wife, the mother of the child, died after delivery and ever since the time the child was born, the child was being brought up in the house of the maternal grand parents. He has further averred that he allowed the child to remain in the house of the maternal grand parents of the child as they were shocked by the death of their daughter, his wife. Of late, differences arose between him and his father-in-law and mother-in-law and they had taken hostile a...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Subbiah and anr. Vs. the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant24
ORDER1. Espousing the cause of the general public, two members of the State Legislature have filed this petition alleging that respondent 2 who is a member of the State Legislative Council had on the floor of that House made certain derogatory remarks touching the conduct of the Judges of this Court in violation of Article 211 of the Constitution and requesting this Court to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution,-(i) directing respondent 1 the Chairman of the Legislative Council to produce the records of the proceedings of the Karnataka State Legislate Council dated 11-8-1978 relating to the statements made by the second respondent as stated in the annexure marked Ext. 'A' and (ii) quashing the entire proceedings therein by declaring the said proceedings to be unconstitutional and illegal as violating the provisions of Art. 211 of the Constitution of India. 2. This case involves great constitutional principles touching parliamentary democracy and independence of the judici...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Bhadur Thakur and Co. and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Kant119; ILR1979KAR394
Chandrashekhar, C.J. 1. These three cases have been referred to this Court under S. 113,C.P.C. As most of the questions referred in them are common, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by this common order. 2. Civil Referred Cases Nos. 6 and 7 of 1970 arise out of O. S. Nos. 98 and 99 of 1969 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge at Bangalore City. O. S. No. 98 of 1969 is for recovery of Rs. 40,25,884 together with interest. Under the Karnataka court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the ad valorem court-fee at the rate of 71/2 % on the sum claimed in the suit, would amount to Rs. 3,01,941.30. 3. O. S. No. 99 of 1969 for recovery of Rs. 1,12,003.71. the ad valorem court-fee payable under the Act on this sum would amount to Rs. 8,400.30. 4. The above two suits are by the same plaintiff. He made an application, I. A. No. I under S. 113, C.P.C. In each of the suits, praying that the learned Civil Judge might state a case and re...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Nayak Vs. Syndicate Bank and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas931(Kar); (1979)IILLJ176aKant
Rama Jois, J.1. Whether the Syndicate Bank, which is a corporate body constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') falls within the definition of the word 'State' as defined in art. 12 of the Constitution and consequently a writ petition is maintainable under art. 226 of the Constitution against the order passed by it against its employees in contravention of the rules regulating their conditions of service is the question that arises for consideration in this case. 2. Facts :- The petitioner was appointed as a clerk on the establishment of the Syndicate Bank on April 25, 1960. He was confirmed in the said post with effect from March 25, 1961. At that time, the Syndicate Bank was a banking company. The said bank was taken over along with other banks under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as an officer by the order of the general manager dated Octobe...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. Ryots Agricultural, Pr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR709(KAR); [1978]115ITR709(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J. 1. The common question referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (herinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in these two cases which relate to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1967-68 reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 81(i)(c) in respect of its income from marketing of agricultural produce of its members after processing it with the aid of power ?' The above question arises in the following circumstances : The assessee is a co-operative society and is engaged in the marketing of the agricultural produce of its members, among other activities. During the accounting years relating to the assessment years in question, the assessee marketed certain quantity of rice grown by its members after hulling it in its mill which was run by power. Similarly, it had marketed the oil derived from the groundnut grown by its members after converting it into o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »