Karnataka Court January 1982 Judgments
Patel Volkart (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1982
Reported in: [1986]62STC411(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. In this revision petition presented under section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether an assessee, who is a defaulter in the payment of tax due under the Act, and who is called upon by the sales tax authorities to pay the penalty at the rates specified in section 13(2) of the Act, has a right of appeal under section 20 of the Act ?' The petition has come up for admission after notice to the respondent. By consent of both counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of by this final order. 2. Facts of the case :- Briefly stated, the relevant facts as are discernible from the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal, and the original records produced, are : (i) The petitioner-company is doing the business of purchase and sale of cotton. During the assessment period 1st September, 1965, to 31st August, 1966...
Tag this Judgment!J. Hiralal Vs. Gulabchand
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant30
ORDER1. At the stage of admission, the respondent is notified. Accordingly he has put in appearance through a counsel. Hence the matter is taken up for final hearing itself.2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 3rd Oct. 1981 passed by the learned II additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 10358/80 rejecting an application (L.A. no. 8) filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The learned Judge has rejected the application on the following grounds:(i) that the suit filed is the one based on the common law right of lateral support and by the amendment, it is now being changed to the one based on the leasehold right. In other words, it is stated by the learned Judge that 'the cause action is being changed now to the infringement of contract of lease on the basis that the defendant is trying to destroy the part of the subject matter of the same'. (ii) that until now it has been the case of the plaintiff that he is a tenant of the premise...
Tag this Judgment!Paidi Lakshmayya Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1982
Reported in: [1984]56CompCas281(Kar)
Venkatesh, J. 1. Appellant, Shri Paidi Lakshmayya, who has been unsuccessful in his defence both in the courts of the Civil Judge and District Judge, Bellary, against the claim of the respondent, Indian Bank Limited (Bank), has preferred this appeal. 2. The bank claimed a money against Lakshmayya in O.S.No. 77 of 1962, on the file of the Civil Judge, Bellary. The suit was decreed as prayed for and came to be confirmed in R.A.No. 1 of 1965, on the file of the District Judge, Bellary. 3. The claim has an interesting background. In order to appreciate the question involved in this appeal, the facts, on which the bank's claim against Lakshmayya is based, may be noted. 4. The Bank took over the Rayalaseema Bank Ltd. in the year 1961 and thus succeeded to all its assets. Prior to its merger, the Rayalaseema Bank had advanced Rs. 10,000 as short-term loan to two parsons, M. Chinnappa Ready and Harinarayanaswami of Dharmavaram Taluk, in the year 1951. Since they did not discharge the debt in t...
Tag this Judgment!Paidi Lakshmayya Vs. Indian Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Kant338; [1984]56CompCas59(Kar); ILR1982KAR565; 1982(1)KarLJ345
1. Appellant Sri Paidi Lakshmayya, who has been unsuccessful in his defence both in the Courts of the Civil Judge and District Judge, Bellary, against the claim of the respondent, Indian Bank Limited (Bank), has preferred this appeal.2. The Bank claimed a money decree against Lakshmayya in 0. S. No. 73 of 1962 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bellary. The suit was decreed as prayed for and came to be confirmed in R. A. No. 1 of 1965 on the file of the District Judge, Bellary.3. The claim has an interesting background. In order to appreciate the question involved in this appeal the facts, on which the Bank's claim against Lakshmayya is based, may be noted:The Bank took over the Rayalaseema Bank Ltd., in the year 1961 and thus succeeded to all its assets. Prior to its merger the Rayalaseema Bank had advanced Rs. 10,000/- as short term loan to two person:- M Chinnappa Reddy and Harinarayanaswamy of Dharmavararn Taluk, in the year 1951. Since, they did not discharge the debt in time the Ray...
Tag this Judgment!Adishayya Kadayya Kadadevaru and anr. Vs. Dundayya Gurushiddayya Hirem ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant79; 1982(1)KarLJ402
Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is by Trustees and is directed against the judgment and order dated 10-4-1978, passed by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, in Miscellaneous Application No.222/1977, on his file made before him under Section 72 (2) of the Act.2. The brief and relevant facts necessary for the appreciation of the facts and questions in this appeal are :3. Adishayya kadayya Kadadevaru by an application, dated 27-6-1968, before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, under Sec 22 of the Act, prayed for inclusion of 20 items of properties shown in the application as the properties belonging to the Trust, namely, Sri Kadasiddeshwar Temple of Konnur village. The same was resisted by Dundayya, the applicant before the District Judge. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, held that properties are Trust properties. That was confirmed by the Charity Commissioner. Aggrieved ...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Gopala Vs. Pushpaveni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Kant329; 1982(1)KarLJ441
Sarhabit, J.1. This appeal by the petitioner-husband is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th Dec., 1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in H. M. C. No. 4 of 1977 on his file, dismissing the petition of the, husband for, divorce from his wife.2. The husband instituted the petition under S. 13(1)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for divorce from his wife on the ground that she deserted him without reasonable cause for more than two years prior to the institution of the petition. The petition was instituted in Feb., 1977.3. The husband averred in the petition that he was married with the respondent in the year 1969, immediately after the marriage, the respondent stayed with him in his house. They lived as husband and wife for about 55 days. He took the respondent to her mother's house for 'Ashada' and thereafter she did not return to his house in spite, of his invitation to her to come back. She further instituted, on the othe...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Mysore Coffee Curing Works Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1982
Reported in: [1984]54CompCas360(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this petition under ss. 106 and 107 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the State of Karnataka has moved this court to restrain the respondent-company from amending arts. 70(a) and 97 of its articles of association, without the consent of the petitioner at the meeting to be held on December 9, 1981. 2. This court issued emergent notice to the respondent regarding admission of the petition and, in the meanwhile, issued stay of the operation of any resolution passed at the general meeting of the company held on December 9, 1981, relating to the amendment of the aforementioned articles of the articles of the articles of association of the company. 3. The respondent company has entered appearance and filed its counter affidavit by way of objections. It is not necessary to traverse in detail the averments made in the counter affidavit. The main points made out by Sri A. N. Jayaram, learned advocate for the respondent company, are : (1) T...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kareem Vs. Iswarappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ114; ILR1982KAR189; 1982(1)KarLJ472
G.N. Sabhahit, J.1. The contempt application instituted by Kareem is based on a consent order passed by this Court on 2-1-1980 in W.P. No. 4227/ 1979. The order reads : 'As agreed to by both the parties it is hereby directed that both the parties should not construct either by themselves or allow other to construct any new buildings, structures or huts in the disputed land till the disposal of this writ petition. No separate orders necessary on I.A. I.' 'I.A. No. I is accordingly disposed of, subject to the observations made above'. 2. Thus, it becomes clear that there is no order of the Court as such and the agreement of the parties is recorded and nothing more. No undertaking as such is taken by the Court. In such cases it is obvious that contempt proceeding cannot lie. 3. Contempt proceedings are mainly to uphold dignity and decorum of the Court and not to vindicate the rights of the parties. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin : 1979CriLJ952 o...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Mothimath Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1982
Reported in: [1984]55STC138(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner carries on the business in handloom silk kanas (choli pieces). He is a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and has been filing his monthly returns regularly. The silk kanas sold by the petitioner contain 40 to 50 per cent silk. The remaining percentage being made up of cotton yarn. 2. By Karnataka Act 7 of 1981, item 146 was substituted in the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. Item 146 now substituted reads as follows : '146. Silk fabrics - (i) Manufactured on a handloom two per cent. (ii) In other cases four per cent. Explanation VIII. - 'Silk fabrics' means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from silk, but does not include cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and man-made fabrics as defined in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.' 3. The petitioner after the amendment, made an application to the second respondent herein (Commissioner of C...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Virupakshappa Channabasapp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Kant275; ILR1982KAR1; 1982(2)KarLJ121
ORDER1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated Sept. 25, 1981 made by the District Judge, Dharwar, in C. R. P. No. 46 of 1977 confirming the order of the Munsiff, Hubli, in H. R. C. No. 173 of 1971, dated Jan. 20, 1977.2. The respondent is the petitioner in H. R. C. No. 173 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, Hubli. For the purpose of proper understanding, the position of the parties in the Court below would be referred to hereafter in this order.3. The petitioner-landlord filed an eviction petition u/s. 21(1)(h) read with (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, contending that be required the petition premises bonafide and reasonably for his own use and occupation and that greater hardship would be caused to him if the eviction is refused and that no comparative hardship would be caused to the respondent-tenant if eviction is ordered.4. The respondent resisted the petition by denying all the petition averments.5. The trial Court recorded the evidence of the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »