Karnataka Court December 1982 Judgments
Sri Viswanatha Silver Manufacturing Electroplating Work and anr. Vs. C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1982
Reported in: 1983(1)KarLJ382; [1983]53STC266(Kar)
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In these petitions the two petitioners have challenged the notice of demand issued by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar demanding certain sums of money as arrears of land revenue. The demand notices are at annexures A and B to the petition relating to the petitioners. It is stated by the petitioners that the claim is erroneous; that they were never dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and that they are not in arrears of any sales tax to that Government and that, therefore, the certificate issued under which the 2nd respondent had acted is without jurisdiction and liable to be struck down and in that circumstance the 2nd respondent be retrained from acting upon the notices at annexures A and B. The 1st respondent is the Collector of Bombay who apparently issued the certificate for collection of sales tax arrears alleged to be due by the petitioners under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. 2. Sri Shivaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has stren...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Mysore Vs. Official Liquidator and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1982
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas609(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. Company Application No. 49 of 1977 is filed by the State Bank of Mysore having its head office on Kempegowda Road Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank'). The application is presumably under s. 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is necessary to mention here that the bank has filed earlier Company Application No. 142 of 1976 seeking therein an order of this court restraining the first respondent-official liquidator therein from making payment of income-tax in respect of M/s. Mysore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd., a public limited company incorporated under the Act and which was by an order dated December 14, 1973, order to be wound up by this court in Company Petition No. 15 of 1972 filed by the State Trading Corporation of India, New Delhi, a creditor, in as much as the bank was a secured creditor and was entitled to preferential payment even before the tax dues, if any, were settled. While that petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangoji Rao and anr. Vs. H.K. Channappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant222
1. This appeal by plaintiff 1 and 2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-1-1975 passed by the District Judge, Kolar, in Regular Appeal No. 47 of 1974, on his file, dismissing the appeal on confirming the judgment and decree dated 29-9-1969 passed by the Munsiff, Chikballapur, in Original Suit No. 89 of 1966, on his file, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of their title to the suit property and for possession of the same from the defendant with past mesne profits of Rs. 300/- and future mesne profits to be determined by the Court.3. One Krishnoji, Rao, great-grandfather of appellant-1 and grandfather appellant-2, had two sons by name Annoji Rao and Pilla Santoji. Annoji Rao died in the year 1954 leaving behind him his widow Makkayyamma and his four children by name Venkoji Rao, Venkatamma, Vellu Bai and Narayana Rao (appellant-2). Venkoji Rao, the eldest son, also died in the year 1955, leaving behind him his widow ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekara Gouda Vs. Canada Bank, Mangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant233
1. This appeal by defendant 7 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-9-1974 passed by the District Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore in R. A. No, 8 of 1971 on his file, partly allowing the appeal and to that extent reversing the judgment and decree dated 14-4-1971 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Mangalore in O. S. No. 83 of 1968 on his file, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff bank against defendants 6 and 7 granting decree only against defendant 2.2. Defendant 2 is the Proprietor of a money lending firm called Mangalore City Bankers arrayed as defendant 1. Defendants 3 to 5 are the sons of defendant 2. Under a hire-purchase agreement entered into by defendant 6 for which defendant 7 was the guarantor, dealer of goods vehicle, sold the goods vehicles to defendant 6. In respect of the advance made by defendant 2 to defendants 6 and 7, the plaintiff bank financed defendants 1 and 2 for which defendant 2 executed a pronote for Rupees 1,50,000/- An agreement was entered into ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›