Karnataka Court August 1981 Judgments
H. Noronha Vs. Income-tax Officer, Circle-ii, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Kar)157; [1982]133ITR199(KAR); [1982]133ITR199(Karn)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing in 'B' group after notice to the respondent, is disposed of by the following order. 2. The petitioner, an assessee under the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is an individual. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 1976-77 disclosing property income of Rs. 13,153, and business loss of Rs. 21,143, before respondent No. 1, the Income-tax Officer, Circle-III, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the ITO'), who accepted the return and concluded the assessment on November 30, 1977. The order of assessment is annexed to the petition as annex.'A', the operative portion of which reads as follows : 'Assessment Order Return admitting property income of Rs. 13,153 and business loss of Rs. 21,143 is filed. In response to notice under s. 143(2), assessee appeared. Loss returned is supported by necessary statements. Assessment is concluded accepting the loss returned. Declared N....
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad Iqbal Dastagirsab and ors. Vs. Mohamadgous Lalamiya Sangolli ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant35; ILR1981KAR1612; 1981(2)KarLJ395
ORDER1. This revision filed under S. 115 of the Civil P. C. is directed against the order dated 27-10-1978 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in H. R. C. R. P. No. 46 of 1978, on the file of his Court, whereby in reversal of the order dated 5-7-1978 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, an 1. A. 1. in H. R. C. No. 258 of 1977, he has directed the Munsiff, to hear and decide the question relating to the relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant as a preliminary issue and, then to hear the parties on the merits of the case.2. The question of law that arises for decision in this revision Is. whether in a proceeding for eviction instituted under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, where the respondent disputes the existence of relationship as landlord and tenant between the applicant and the respondent, it is necessary to decide the Issue regarding the existence of such relationship as landlord and tenant as a preliminary issue.3. The question arises in, this ...
Tag this Judgment!Shrishailappa and anr. Vs. Muttawwa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant334; ILR1982KAR255; 1982(1)KarLJ9
1. This appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-1-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Bagalkot, in R. A. No. 9/72 on his file allowing the appeal on reversing the judgment and decree dated 24-1-1972 passed by the Munsiff, Mudhol in 0. S. No. 24/70 on his file decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for.2. Plaintiffs instituted a suit for partition and separate possession of their share along with mesne profits. According to the plaintiffs, the porosities of the family was one Mageppa. He had two sons, namely, Gurappa and Parappa. After the death of Mageppa, his son Gurappa and Parappa lived jointly and enjoyed the suit property jointly. Gurappa, being the elder, was managing the joint family. Gurappa. died on 29-11-1933 leaving behind his son Mallappa, arrayed as first defendant in the suit. After the death of Gurappa, Mullappa and Parappa lived jointly and enjoyed the suit property jointly till the death of Parappa. Parappa died on 8-1-1942. Pl...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Channabasamma and ors. Vs. T.M. Rudriak and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant198; ILR1982KAR98
Jagannatha Shetty, J.R.A.F. No. 4 of 1973 -:1. This appeal by the defendants has been preferred against the judgment and decree dt. Aug. 14, 1972 of the Civil Judge, Chitradurga in 0. S. No. 25 of 1964.2. The facts so far as relevant may briefly be stated as follows:Channabasamma - defendant-1 and Rudraiya - the plaintiff - were rival claimants to plaint A and B Schedule properties left behind by one Halaswami Each claimed to be the nearest agnatic heir of the deceased to the exclusion of the other,3. To appreciate the controversy involved in this appeal, it will be useful to have before us the pedigree table which is as follows:-T. M. (YAJAMAN) MURIGAPPA(Ist Wife) I (2nd Wife)Siddalingappa Siddappa Vearappa Gorupadappa Murugendrappa Tbirukappa(Dead long ago) (Dead long ago) (Dead long ago) (Dead long ago) (Dead long ago) (Dead long ago) died on 9p>11-11-1929Gurashanthappa (Dead long ago)Shandaksharalya Panahaksheratya Onkarappa Namasivayappa(Dead long ago) (Dead long ago) (Died on3O-8...
Tag this Judgment!Shrimaj Jagadguru Mummadi Shri Neelakantha Pattadarya Mahaswamygalu Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant236
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the II Additional Munsiff, Hubli, on I.A. No. 9 in O.S. No. 75/1975.2. The applicant in I.A. No. 9 was the present revision petitioner, the plaintiff in the suit. The application was made under Order 26, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for appointment of a commissioner to examine the plaintiff at his Mutt which he could not leave to personally attend the Court as he was every day pre-occupied with his duties to the deity as well as the devotees. The defendant who is also a Mathadhipathi objected to the same. After hearing the parties the application was dismissed as the applicant was not either exempted person or suffered from any sickness or infirmity which prevented him from attending the Court.3. The learned Munsiff has further held that the application is not a serious one inasmuch as on two earlier occasions identical applications 1. As. 7 and 8 were dismissed for non-prosecution, as both the applicant and ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sreedharamurthy Vs. Bellary Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant287; ILR1982KAR252
1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-7-1974 passed by the Civil Judge, Bellary in R. A. No. 27,/73 on his Me enhancing the damages granted by the Munsiff. Bellary in O. S. 339/69 on his file awarding damages of Rs. 100/- in the suit to the plainiiff.2. The plaintiff averred that the defendant 1 Municipal Council out of ill-will and malice served notice of distraint warrant on him on 16-11-1968 and 9eized his furniture on 18-11-1968 mainly on the ground that he instituted suits against the Municipal Council, the plaintiff being a practicing advocate. He further averred that it was done out of malice. As a result of such seizure and retention of the furniture and books for sonic time till the Court ordered release, the Municipal Council injured his reputation and for that he demanded Rs. 3,000/- as damages from the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council resisted the suit. The trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, found that wh...
Tag this Judgment!Juggat Pharma (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Division-i, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ71Kant
1. The Petitioner-Management has challenged the validity of the conciliation proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent on a dispute raised by respondents 2 to 4 touching the notices of retrenchment served upon them. 2. Admittedly, respondents 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the workmen) were working as sales representatives of the petitioner in Madras at the relevant time. Under Annexure 'E' produced in the writ petition, the petitioner terminated the services of the workmen, as their services in its view, became surplus to the requirements of its business. These notices were served on them in Madras. On receipt of the said notices, they raised a dispute on 11-6-79 before respondent No. 1 Conciliation Officer. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to initiate conciliation proceedings since the petitioner's establishment is situated at Bangalore and the workmen were only looking after the work of the petitioner as sales representatives in...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mahadevappa and Etc. Etc. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant113; ILR1981KAR1512; 1982(1)KarLJ28
D.M. Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, have been referred to a Division Bench.2. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 7595, 7791, 7792, 7794, 7373, 8125, 8129 to 8131 and 8431 of 1979, are Industrial Establishments which run Omni Buses and/or Mini-Omni Buses for conveying their employees from their houses to their respective factories and vice versa. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 5481 to 5492, 5508 to 5513, 5580 to 5587, 5844 to 5860, 5935 to 5942, 6333 to 6339, 6576 to 6579, 6866, 6867, 9134 to 7141, 7326 to 7328, 7820 to 7833, 7837, 7838, 7854, 7874 to 7876, 7886 to V897, 8055, 8056, 8067 to 8071, 8074, 8077, 8078, 8105, 8106 8107, 8110 to 8113, and 8.509 of 1979, are all operators of stage carriages in Karnataka. Both categories of petitioners have challenged in these petitions the enhancement of the tax on their motor vehicles under the Karnataka Taxation and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Papaiah Vs. Chikkabiddappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant234; ILR1981KAR1619
ORDER1. This is a revision petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. directed against the order of the then Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, made in O.S. No. 313/1980 on I.A. No. II.2. The plaintiff brought the suit against respondent for a permanent injunction restraining the said defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant-respondent resisted the suit setting up his own title to the property. Having regard to that, the plaintiff filed an application under O. 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking an amendment of the plaint in respect of the valuation of the suit for purposes of Court-fee to read as follows:'The conduct of defendant amounts to denial of plaintiff's title and the suit is therefore laid under Section 26(a) of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act and the Court-fee is paid according to Section 26(a) read with Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act und...
Tag this Judgment!B. Jagannath Vs. N.C. Narayanappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant233; 1981(2)KarLJ432
ORDER1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order made on I.A.III filed by the defendant in O.S. 5354/80 on the file of the 7th City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. I.A. III was filed for appointment of a Commissioner for measuring and demarcating the suit schedule property with a suitable sketch attached to it. Learned civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the prayer for the appointment of a Commissioner is frivolous inasmuch as the boundaries of the suit property were clear from the plaint sketch though regarding the western boundary the plaint sketch was silent. He further held that the said sketch was sufficient for the purpose of the suit.3. Aggrieved by the same the Revision Petitioner contends that it is essential that appointment of a Commissioner be made by Court as otherwise it would be difficult to decide the matters in issue in the case.4. If the dispute relates to the accuracy of the sketch filed along with the suit, the need for appointment of a Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »