Karnataka Court January 1979 Judgments
Siddamma and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Kant211; ILR1979KAR579; 1979(1)KarLJ233
ORDER1. This petition, under Article 226(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India is directed against the order bearing No. K. L. R. F. 129/77-78 dated 25-11-1977, passes by the Land Tribunal, Hunsur, produced as Exhibit-D. By the said order, the Land Tribunal has granted the occupancy right in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of an area of 2 acres in the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 298, situated at Hussainpura Nala Village, taluk Hunsur, district Mysore.2. The first petitioner is the owner of the land in question and the second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner.3. The third respondent filed an application in Form No. 7 before the 2nd respondent-Tribunal, under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for being registered as an occupant of the land in question. The first petitioner came to be impleaded in the said petition in pursuance of the order dated 18-11-1977 as stated in form No. 7, produced as Exhib...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Kidi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Kant146; 1979(1)KarLJ356
Venkataramiah, J. 1. This is an appeal filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12175 of 1977 allowing the said petition and issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents in the writ petition not to enforce the notification dated 18-2-1976 issued by the State Government under S. 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) The petitioner in the writ petition is a partner of a restaurant situate at Dharwar in the State of Karnataka. By the notification referred to above which was impugned in the writ petition the State Government extended the provisions of the Act to restaurants and hotels in Dharwar and some places in the State of Karnataka. The Act was not however extended to other hotels and restaurants situated in other parts of the State even though the Act had been extended to those parts by notifications issued from time to time under S. 1(3) of the Act. The petitioner contended ...
Tag this Judgment!Doddaramaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant5
ORDER1. This Writ Petition filed under Article 226(1), (b) and (c) is directed against the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Koratagere Taluk, in No. LRF. CR. 466/75-76 dated 15-5-1976 rejecting the application made by the petitioner for being registered as an occupant of the land S. No. 11/5 of Huluyanagala Village.2. The contention of the petitioner is that on 15-5-1976 the case was posted for enquiry into the application made by the petitioner for an interim order pending his application filed in Form 7 and that while hearing the application for temporary injunction, the Tribunal has disposed of the main matter itself. Therefore, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had no opportunity to prove his case.3. The facts necessary to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the petitioner are that the land in question originally belonged to the petitioner and he sold it under a registered sale deed dated 10-5-1969 to the third respondent. In his statement made b...
Tag this Judgment!Peter Paul Coelho and Ors. Vs. Constance D'Souza and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant28; 1979(1)KarLJ219
ORDER1. The petitioners herein who have been brought on record as heirs of the original tenant, since deceased, in occupation of the premises have sought to challenge the correctness of the judgment and Order dated 24-2-1976 passed by the District Judges South Kanara, now Dakshina Kannada, in H. R. C. Appeal No. 110 of 1974 confirming the order of eviction dated 27-9-1974 by the II Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, in H. R. C. No. 289/69 on the file of his Court.2. Residential house bearing Number 15-458 of which the respondent-1 is admittedly owner and landlord is the subject matter of dispute.3. Sylvester Coelho, since deceased was the monthly tenant of the same paying a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-, the same being payable by the end of every calendar mouth. The tenancy commenced from the first of every calendar month and ended with the end of the month. The respondent terminated the tenancy of the said tenant Sylvester Coelho by a quit notice dated 2-11-1967 issued by his Lawyer on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Superintendent of C. Ex., Mangalore Vs. K. Abubaker
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1979
Reported in: 1979CENCUS493D; 2000(123)ELT525(Kar)
M.S. Nesargi, J. 1. In this appeal filed under section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has prayed that the sentence passed by the II Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore in C.C. No. 204/76 against the respondents who were accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 204/76 be enhanced as the same is inadequate taking into consideration the gravity of the offence committed by them. 2. The prosecution case held proved by the learned Magistrate is that at about 5 p.m. on 8-12-1972 P.W. 1 got creditable information that contraband gold was being transported in a lorry bearing No. MYX 8249 and he intercepted the same. He was accompanied by the staff. Accused 1 was driver and accused 2 was the cleaner. P.W. 1 found a cavity underneath the seat of A-1. That cavity contained a cloth jacket in which there were two packets one containing 500 pellets and another packets containing 300 pellets of primary gold of 10 tolas bearing foreign markings. They were seized under a panchanama as ...
Tag this Judgment!D.V. Kempaiah and ors. Vs. the Chief Marketing Officer, Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1979
Reported in: AIR1979Kant195; ILR1979KAR1291
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. Petitioners in all these writ petitions are either traders or commission agents. They are also called as market functionaries under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. They are presently carrying on their business in agricultural produce in a locality called 'Old and New Tharagupet along with Krishna Rajendra Market' at Bangalore. The area consisting of these localities was once notified as 'market yard', but now a new market yard has been established at Yeshwanthpur on Tumkur Road and the Market Committee has issued notices to the petitioners to shift their business to the new market yard. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the notices contending, inter alia, that the objections filed by them against the proposal to shift the market yard were not considered, and there were no adequate facilities for trading in the new market yard. 2. During the pendency of the writ petitions, th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Ramachandra Naik Vs. Rukmini Kom Krishna Naik and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant7
ORDER1. In this petition under Article 226(1)(b) and (c) of the constitution of India, the petitioner who claims to be the tenant of an extent of 0-05 guntas of land in Survey No. 173A of Janmane village, Taluk Sirsi, has challenged the order of the Land Tribunal in case No. LRM SR. 1468/6345 dated 13-10-1977 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in Form No. 7 for being registered as an occupant and further granting occupancy right in favour of the 1st respondent.2. The petitioner and the lst respondent both claim to be the tenants of the land in question and accordingly both of them made applications in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal for registration of occupancy. Both the applications were clubbed together and decided by the Land Tribunal by a common order.3. The contention of Sri N.Shankaranarayana Bhat, the learned, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that Sri A. M. Hegde, who was one of the members of the Tribunal who participated in. the passing of the impug...
Tag this Judgment!D.C. Shah and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1979
Reported in: [1979]118ITR419(KAR); [1979]118ITR419(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The assessees in these cases are co-owners of a building constructed on Plot 'C',Shivsagar Estates, Bombay. The assessment years are 1968-69 to 1972-73. During the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72, the said building belonged to 16 co-owners. During the period between April 1, 1971, and March 28, 1972 the said building was owned by 18 co-owners; on March 29, 1972, it was owned by 19 co-owners and on the last two days of that year, i,e., 30th and 31st March, 1972, it was owned by 19 co-owners, but one co-owner who owned the property on March 29, 1972, Mrs. A. D. Shah, was substituted by another co-owner, A. D. Shah Private Limited, on the 30th and 31st March 1972. It is not necessary for the purpose of these cases to refer in detail to the manner in which the co-owners acquired title to the building in question in the course of the order. The particulars thereof are, however, set out in detail in the statements of cases submitted to this court. The co-owners who h...
Tag this Judgment!Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1979
Reported in: [1979]43STC352(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. Whether the compulsory sale of cement by a manufacturer to the State Trading Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the STC) as regulated under the Cement Control Orders promulgated by the Central Government under section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, amounts to a sale as defined in section 2(t) of the Karnataka Sales Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and consequently liable to sales tax under section 5(3)(a) of the Act, is the precise question that arises for consideration in these five revision petitions presented by a cement manufacturer under section 23(1) of the Act against the order of the Karnataka Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner in all these petitions is Messrs. Bagalkot Udyog Ltd., Bagalkot, which is a manufacturer of cement. Under section 5(3)(a) of the Act, sales tax is made payable at the earliest sale of commodities specified in column (2) of the Seco...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. Southern Founders
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR37(KAR); [1979]120ITR37(Karn)
Venkataramaiah, J.1. The question referred to us under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in the above case reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the money borrowed and utilised in the construction of the new factory building was for the purpose of the assessee's business and therefore, the interest payment on such borrowings is allowable as a revenue deduction ?' 2. The assessee claimed during the relevant assessment year the interest paid on amounts borrowed by it for purpose of putting up additional buildings. The ITO and the AAC held that the interest paid on such borrowings would not be deductible as revenue expenditure on the ground that the additional building constructed by the assessee had not yet been put to use. In the appeal filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, the orders passed by the authorities under the Act were set aside and the claim made by t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »