Karnataka Court November 1981 Judgments
Rouben Isreal Patter Vs. Mamta and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Kant10; ILR1982KAR819
ORDER1. At the stage of admission, the respondents are notified. Accordingly, they have put in appearance through a counsel. Hence the civil revision petition is taken up for final hearing.2. This Civil revision petition is proffered against the order dated 12-1-1981 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bagalkot, I.A.V. in Matrimonial Case No.21 of 1979 directing the petitioner to appear, and to make available the two minor children, for cross-examination by respondent No. 1 for deciding the application I. A. No. 1filed by respondent under S. 43 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter reffered to as 'the Act' ) for the custody of two minor children. I.A.No. V is an application filed by respondent No. 1 under S. 51 of the Act.3. Matrimonial Case No. 21 of 1979 is a proceeding initiated by respondent-1 for divorce or for judicial separation under Sections 10 and 22 of the Act, as the parties are christians. In that proceeding , an application (I.A. No. 1) is filed by the first respondent for...
Tag this Judgment!Devichand Pannaji and Co. and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Kar)287; [1982]138ITR789(KAR); [1982]138ITR789(Karn); 1982(1)KarLJ278
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This writ petition is disposed of by the following order at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents. 2. The petitioner is a tenant in premises bearing No. 32, S.D. Lane, Chickpet, Banglore. In this writ petition, he has prayed for the quashing of the order made by the 2nd respondent, IAC of Income-tax, dropping further proceedings under Chap. XX-A of the I.T. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the premises which is in his occupation. 3. It is averred that the petitioner had offered to his original landlord a sum of Rs. 4,41,000 as consideration for the premises and expressed his intention to purchase the same and entered into an agreement in that behalf. But the landlord instead of selling the same to the petitioner, sold it to the 4th respondents by a deed of sale in which the consideration has been shown as Rs. 2,49,000 only. The petitioner, therefore, brought this to the notice of the concerned authorities under t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Suri and Nayar Ltd. Vs. Re: Spraymetal (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas868(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In Company Application No. 1763/81, made under r. 67 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with s. 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, applicant, Suri and Nayar Limited, Bangalore, had prayed for permission and directions to convene the meetings of members of the company as well as company's creditors, secured and unsecured, for the purpose of obtaining their consent to the scheme of amalgamation of the applicant company with M/s. Spraymetal P. Ltd. Bombay, which was the transferor company. That prayer was granted to the applicant company by an order made by me on September 15, 1981, in the course of which apart from fixing the venue, the date and the time of the meetings, the quorum was also fixed for such of the meetings as were required to be held and an advocate of this court was appointed as chairman of the meetings. 2. Two days before these meetings were scheduled to take place an application was made in this court in Company Application No. 1801/81, by...
Tag this Judgment!Selection Committee for Admission to Govt. Medical Colleges and Govt. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant193; ILR1982KAR215; 1982(1)KarLJ1
D.M. Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Chandrakantaraj Urs, J., allowing Writ Petition No. 15949 of 1981. The respondent therein, the Selection Committee for admission to Government Medical Colleges and Government Seats in Private Medical Colleges (hereinafter referred to as 'the Selection Committee), has preferred this appeal. The petitioner in the writ petition will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner.2. The petitioner had passed the Pre university Examination securing 81.33 per cent marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and had applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges in the State for the academic year 1981-82. In her application, she had claimed to belong to a Backward Caste. The caste, as stated in her application, was 'Salia'. She was interviewed on 29-7-1981 by the Selection Committee which took the view that Salia caste was not a Backward Caste according to the Government Order dated 1-5-1979 specifying Backward Classes and provid...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Durgappa Mayannavar ors. Vs. Durgavva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant214; ILR1982KAR543; 1982(1)KarLJ246
1. This appeal by defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-101974, passed by the Civil Judge, Haveri in R. A. No. 273 of 1971 on his file, dismissing the appeal and confirming the 'judgment and decree dated 3-9-1970, passed by the Munsiff, Ranebennur in L. C. Suit No. 14 of 1964 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for 1/3rd share and for partition of the suit, properties by metes and bounds.2. The plaintiff Mayappa Maradappa Mayannavar filed L. C. Suit No. 14/64 on the file of the Munsiff, Ranebennur for declaration that he had 1/3rd share in the suit properties and for separate possession of the same along with future profits, including the alienations done by the first defendant in favour of defendants 4 and 5. According to him, one Maradappa, the propositus of the family had four sons, viz., Durgappa, Mayappa Nimbappa and Pharmappa, Mayappa is the plaintiff, Durgappa died in about 1956. His sons were defendants 1 and 2, Nimbappa is d...
Tag this Judgment!M. Narasimha Bhakta and anr. Vs. Jayanthilal Gokuldas and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant128; ILR1982KAR155
ORDER1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions they were clubbed and heard together.2. Jayantilal Gokuldas, first respondent in C. R. P. No. 1813 of 1979 and respondent in C. R. P. No. 2220179, (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) is the owner of a building known as 'Jayant building' situated in the 13th Ward of Mangalore Town. That building consists of number of shop premises. In one of such premises (bigger in size) a business concern known as 'Adarsh' used to carry on (is even now carrying on) business of dealing in cloth of M/s. Mafatlal Group of Mills. The business concern 'Adarsh' belongs to a firm. The landlord's wife, daughter-in-law, and other relations are partners of that firm, The 1st petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1813/79, Narasimha Bhakta, is in occupation of two portions (more fully described in the application filed against him by the landlord) of Jayanth buildings as a tenant and is carrying on business in the name 'Subbhas Trading Com...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Pande and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant343; ILR1982KAR344; 1982(1)KarLJ466
N. Venkatachala, J.1. By consent of learned. counsel, this appeal was treated as having been posted for hearing and we heard them.2. This appeal is from the order dated 31-8-1981 of Chandrakantaraj Mrs, J. in writ petition of Ramesh Pande and others of 1981 regarding the court-fee payable on that petition. The petitioners therein have presented this appeal and for the sake of convenience, they will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners.3. Petitioners, thirteen in number, who are individually engaged in vending liquor in different towns of Karnataka, presented a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, impugning the constitutional validity of new Section 6-11 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, substituted by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Impugned taxing provision'). On that petition, a court fee of, Rs. 100 had-been paid. The office of this Court raised an objection to the effect that proper, court-fees payable on t...
Tag this Judgment!B.G. Sankannavar Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC271(Kar)
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This matter has appeared in the list of admission cases for the day. The petition is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order. 2. This revision petition under section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the 'Act' for short), is directed against the order dated 8th August 1980, of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 139 of 1980 on its file dismissing the petitioner's appeal and affirming the order dated 29th November, 1978, of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) which, in turn, dismissed the assessee's appeal and affirmed the order of assessment dated 24th July, 1978, made by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, II S.C., Hubli, for the assessment period 14th November, 1974, to 3rd November, 1975. 3. Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the two successive appellate authorities under the Act, have decl...
Tag this Judgment!Revanappa Vs. Gunderao and ors Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Kant164; 1983(1)KarLJ361
ORDER1. These two civil revision petitions are preferred against the order dated 12-8-1980 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bidar, in M. V. C. Nos. 7 and 8 of 1979 rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner for amendment of the objections.2. It is contended by Sri M. M. Jagirdar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal' constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a Tribunal and it is not a 'Court' subordinate to the High Court; therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (For short, 'the Code') cannot be either invoked or exercised. The learned Counsel has, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the following decisions:(1) (1973) 2 Mys LJ 473 : (AIR 1974 Kant 109), (State of Mysore v. K. L. Subbanna); (2) AIR 1974 Raj 55 (Laximinarain Misra v. Kailash Nar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›