Karnataka Court January 1981 Judgments
New India Corporation Vs. Nandanvan Manufacturers and Traders (P.) Ltd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas32(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This petition under ss. 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act read with s. 439(1)(b) thereof is by a partnership firm which carries on the business of industrial financing in the city of Bombay. The petitioner-firm has prayed for the winding-up of M/s. Nanadanvan ., a registered company having its registered office at Bangalore. The respondent-company has for its main objects the business manufacture, traders, to act as contractors, representatives, agents, exporters and to act as distributors, sub-agents and carry on the business as transporters, etc. 2. The facts briefly stated leading to this petition are as follows : The petitioner-firm advanced a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 to one Sheth Balchand Menghraj Pamnani who was the owner (hereinafter referred to as the owner) of a biscuit factory to together with the grounds. The machinery and the standing building structures thereon situate at Gwalior City in Madhya Pradesh State on the security of the properties compris...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ranganatha Rao Vs. Accountant-general and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1981
Reported in: ILR1981KAR885; [1981]129ITR130(KAR); [1981]129ITR130(Karn); 1981(1)KarLJ329
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is an income-tax assessee. He joined the service of the Union Govt. in the year 1953 in postal department. Thereafter, he has serving in the Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Expenditure, New Delhi. In the year 1977 he has deputed by the Ministry of Finance to render services for M/s. Thungabhadra Steel Products Ltd., a joint undertaking of the Govt. of India, the Govt. of Karnataka and the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh at Thungabhadra Dam site. In the year 1978 the petitioner chose to be absorbed in the service of the undertaking of the aforementioned Governments and retired voluntarily from the service of the Govt. of India. The petitioner was eligible to certain retirement benefits as he had completed 25 years of service in the Central Govt. It is sufficient to state that he was entitled to either draw pension at the scale permissible or commute the same and draw a lump sum. The petitioner chose to commute his pension and as a result he was entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Tax Recovery Officer, Dharwar Vs. Hansaben and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Kar)343; ILR1981KAR1606; [1982]135ITR572(KAR); [1982]135ITR572(Karn)
K.A. Swami, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 28th May, 1976, passed by the learned First Addl. Munsiff, Hubli, in Misc. Case No. 70 of 1975. By the said order, the learned Munsiff has partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner under O. 21, r. 46, read with s. 73 of the CPC and has held that the petitioner is entitled to the amount of the judgment debt deposited in the court at C. No. 75, dated April 7, 1975, excluding the amount due to be paid to the decree holder Execution Case No. 18 of 1974 and the claim of the petitioner for payment of the money which is ordered to be paid to the decree-holder in Execution Case No. 18 of 1974 has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case for the purpose of deciding the contentions raised in this civil revision petition are as follows : The vehicle in question bearing registration No. MYK 4448 belonged to the 2nd respondent, who was an assessee of the I.T. Dept. and was in arrears of income-tax to...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmani Ammal V.M. Vs. the House Rent and Accommodation Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant162; 1981(1)KarLJ333
ORDER1. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the Rent Controller in allotting the premises in favour of respondent No. 3 has not taken into consideration the request made by the tenant occupying the adjacent premises, that the premises should be allotted only to a vegetarian as he is a strict vegetarian and that it would -offend .his feelings ff the same is allotted to a non-vegetarian *To quash order of House Rent and Accommodation Controller. Bangalore. D/-24-9-1979.2. On going through the order of the Rent Controller, I find that there is absolutely no reference made to the objections raised by the tenant and the Deputy Commissioner in the course of his order has observed thus :'That her client is a non- vegetarian , it is true but asked the learned Advocate why was this not raised when the allotment proceeding were held in HRC Court. In view of these the order of the Hours Rent Controller should be upheld and appeal dismissed So, the Deputy Commissioner simply, says that i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narayana Bhatta Vs. the Asst. Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1981
Reported in: ILR1981KAR195; 1981(1)KarLJ211
ORDER1. The only question raised in this petition is whether it is obligatory for the owner of a 'tourist vehicle' to produce a permit before demanding registration of the vehicle. 2. The undisputed facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : A lawyer turned into an operator is the petitioner. He left the legal profession not by design or accident, but due to a disability suffered by a car accident. He took up transport business by keeping tourist vehicles under the reverential name 'Sri Satya Sai Tourist'. When the business was lucrative, he suddenly suffered a set-back. He had three tourist vehicles, each costing a couple of lakhs. All those vehicles were overnight acquired by the State by promulgating an Ordinance which was later replaced by the Act called 'the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976.' 3. Nevertheless, the petitioner appears to have lost no heart. He wants now to revive his transport business. He has applied for an All India Tourist permit. The ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ratnakar Rao Vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1981
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Kar)83; ILR1981KAR666; [1981]128ITR527(KAR); [1981]128ITR527(Karn); [1981]6TAXMAN144(Kar)
Rama Jois, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following three question for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Commissioner was competent to consider before initiation of proceedings under section 263, material which was brought on record subsequent to the passing of the order which is the subject-matter of revision (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in coming to the conclusion that where the Income-tax Officer has exempted a particular sum from tax and the Commissioner acts under section 263 to withdraw such exemption it is for the assessee to lead evidence to show that the sum in question was exempt from tax (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner or Income-tax that the amount of $ 7,725 equivalent to Rs. 57,938, received by the assessee from the Asst. Director of Jewish Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka Vs. Hutti Gold Mines Co. L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1981
Reported in: (1981)22CTR(Kar)80; [1981]128ITR476(KAR); [1981]128ITR476(Karn); [1981]6TAXMAN155(Kar)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the new buildings and machinery installed during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 ?' 2. The assessee made a claim for relief under s. 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in a sum of Rs. 21,30,606. In support of the claim, particulars were given about the extent of the ore raised and the new buildings put up and new machinery installed. The ITO, however, declined to grant relief being of the opinion that the existing framework had only been expanded to secure larger output. On the appeal also, the claim of the assessee was not recognised. The AAC took the view that all t...
Tag this Judgment!Basamma and ors. Vs. Peerappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant9; ILR1981KAR1230; 1981(1)KarLJ286
1. This appeal is by the defendants and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-11-1974 of the Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga in R. A. No.106 of 1973 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20-10-1973 of the Muntsiff, Chittapur in 0. S. No. 54 of 1969.2. Agricultural lands bearing Sy. Nos. 1 and 2 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas and 6 acres 14 guntas respectively of Margol village, Chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga District, which were originally owned by one Baswantappa the husband of defendant No. 1, are in possession of the respondent/plaintiff, at any rate from 1955, if not earlier, After the death of Baswantappa sometime in 1957, there have been a number of disputes between defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff concerning the said lands.3. On 25-11-1968 defendant No. 1 instituted 0. S. No. 102 of 1968 in the Court of the Munsiff, Chittapur, against the plaintiff and four others for a permanent injunction to restrain them from. interfering with her alleged possession of the said land...
Tag this Judgment!Peerappa Vs. Basamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant163
1. This appeal is by the defendant and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-7-1974 of the Principal Civil Judge, Gulbarga in R. A. No. 21 of 1974 reversing the judgment and decree dated 21-4-1973 of the Munsif, Chittapur in O. S. No. 25 of 1969.2. As early as on 30-8-1966, the respondents/plaintiffs instituted O. S. No. 96/1 of 1966 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Gulbarga for recovery of possession of two agricultural lands detailed in the plaint, past and future mesne profits from the defendants.3. The plaintiffs alleged that the lands were originally owned by one Baswantappa alias Basappa and that on his death in about 1957 they had succeeded to his estate including the lands in dispute as his heirs. But, while so alleging, the plaintiffs did not seek for declaration of their title to the lands. On the other hand, they expressly confined their relief for recovery of possession only on the plea that the defendant had illegally and wrongfully taken their possession in...
Tag this Judgment!U.V. Shenoy Vs. Karnataka Engineering Products Co. (P.) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas40(Kar); 1981(1)KarLJ145
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a petition filed by one, U. V. Shenoy under s. 433(e) and (f) read with ss. 434(1)(a) and 439(1)(b) of the company companies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') prying or an order winding up the 1st respondent-company. 2. It is petitioners cafe that the 1st respondent-company owes a sum of Rs. 33,490.55 in respect of certain items of goods supplied by him to the company. It is unnecessary to set out in detail the claim. It is further alleged that some of the amounts due had in fact been paid by cheques which on presentation to the Syndicate Bank Gandhinagar branch, came to be dishonoured. In that circumstance of a fresh demand was made and statutory notice issued in spite of which the 1st respondent-company and the directors failed and neglected to pay the sums demanded. Therefore, the petition. 3. The petition has been resisted on the ground the two sums are due by the company or its directors to the petitioner inasmuch as the various items of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »