Karnataka Court November 1979 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
H.M. Jaffar Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR443(KAR); [1980]124ITR443(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. In this petition, the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Mangalore, dated February 17, 1975 (Ex. E), purporting to be under s. 61 read with s. 70 of the E.D. Act, 1953, is challenged. 2. The petitioner is the accountable person who filed the return in respect of the estate consequent on the death of one Habibullah on January 9, 1963. An assessment order was made on December 25, 1961, a copy of which has been filed as Ex. A. The principal value of the estate of the deceased was valued at Rs. 14,28,450. The total tax payable was calculated at Rs. 2,58,840.41 and after giving deduction to the amount that had been paid under s. 57, the balance payable was Rs. 2,18,600.48. This was directed to be paid on or before January 31, 1967, and demand notice and challan were also sent along with the copy of the order. This order did not contain any direction in regard to the payment of interest. There was an appeal against this assessment to the Appellate CED. ...
Siddappa Yellappa Kundargi Vs. the Election Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant104; ILR1980KAR14; 1979(2)KarLJ61
Bopanna, J.1. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned single Judge was right in declining to exercise his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in an election dispute when the entire process of election had been completed and there was an alternative remedy by way of an election petition.2. The undisputed facts giving rise to this appeal are: The appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned single Judge, and the second respondent herein, had filed their nominations for being elected to a vacant seat in the Panchayat of Akkatangerahal. That seat had been reserved for a member of the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. Their nomination papers which were in Form No' 2-A prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, .1959 (in short, 'the Act') contained the necessary declaration that they belonged to the scheduled tribe, namely, Nayak community. At the time of scrutiny of th...
R. Saraswathi and ors. Vs. Shakthi Beneficial Corporation and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1979
Reported in: [1980]50CompCas562(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a petition under s. 583(1), (2) and (4)(b) read with s. 582 and s. 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), presented by five petitioners. They have alleged that they were subscribers to the respondent-firm, Shakthi Beneficial Corporation, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, carrying on the business of chit fund transactions at Bangalore. The petitioners have prayed that the firm be wound up under the provisions of the Act, as the respondent-firm and its partners have failed to pay each of the petitioners the balance of their subscription amounting to Rs. 4,000 in each case together with bonus thereon in the sum of Rs. 341.65. Balance due to each of the petitioners is indicated as follows : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner Membership Amount Plus Bonus Amount BalanceNo. subscribed Paid bythe 1strespondent.--------------------...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›