Karnataka Court April 1982 Judgments
Annappa Reddy Vs. U. Krishna and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Kant301; ILR1982KAR782; 1982(2)KarLJ169
Sabhahff, J.1. This appeal by the first defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-3-1973 passed by the Second Addl. Civil Juge, Bangalore City in O. S. No. 28 of 1969 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. 2. The relevant plaint averments in brief are: One Ugrappa Reddy was the propositus of the family. His wife was Muniyamma. He had five sons, namely, Lakshmiah Reddy, Munireddy, Yengappa Reddy, Anneppa Reddy and Krishna Reddy. Krishna Reddy is the plaintiff in the suit. Anneppa Reddy is the first defendant.3. It is the case of the plaintiff as also of the first defendant that there was a regular partition among the members of the family on 264-1963 as per Ext. P-1 a registered Partition Deed. Thereafter, it is the case of the plaintiff that himself and defendant No. 1 reunited and were living in union, carried on joint business, earned profits and acquired properties. Since disputes arose between them in December 1967, he demanded of defen...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Sagar Vs. the Chairman, Selection Committee for the Admission to ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant199
ORDER1. This petition coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents is disposed of by the following order by consent of parties.2. The petitioner was an applicant for one of the seats in Government Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka for the academic year 1981-82. The selection to the Medical Colleges run by the Government as well as private Medical Colleges in which the Government is entitled to certain number of seats is governed by the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Under Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules provision is made for distribution of seats in favour of certain categories of persons and also for reservation of seats in favour of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Caste, Backward Community and Special Groups. The petitioner, in the first application made by him, disclosed his father's total income as Rs. 12,099-00 per annum. That disclosure was duly affirmed by both the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Yamuna Vs. A. Rama AmIn and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant27; 1982(2)KarLJ113
ORDER1. The petitioner, who has been unsuccessful in the two Courts below in getting herself impleaded as a party to a proceeding pending on the file of the Munsiff, Mangalore. South Kanara, has come up with this revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proceeding (H.R.C.No.66/71 pending on the file of the Munsiff) is one started by the first respondent against the other respondents herein claiming possession of a premises under clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (h) and (p) of sub-section 91) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act). It may be noted that Clause (f) provides for the eviction of a tenant unlawfully subletting the whole or part of the premises. In so far as this part of the claim is concerned, the allegation made in the petition by the landlord is that the premises had been unlawfully sublet by the tenants in favour of this petitioner.2. Since, this petitioner is not a party to the proceeding, she filed I.A. IV under Section 22 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!P.K.P. Abdul Hakeem and Co. Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC205(Kar)
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner, who is a dealer, registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has presented this writ petition questioning the legality of the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Mysore, under section 12B of the 'Act' calling upon him to show cause, as to why additional tax should not be levied under the provisions of the 'Act' and also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing the Government Advocate was directed to take notice and by consent of both the counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The notice impugned in the writ petition reads as follows : 'Please take notice that the final assessment of 1979-80 was concluded on 12th December, 1980, in which the total and taxable turnovers were determined at Rs. 21,73,909.94 and Rs. 18,16,363.50 respectively under the C.S.T. Act, 1956, and while levying taxes the question of additional tax and sur...
Tag this Judgment!Surgihalli Veerabhadrappa Sons and Co. and anr. Vs. the State of Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1982
Reported in: 1982(2)KarLJ187; [1983]54STC28(Kar)
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioner, who is the same in both the petitions, has questioned the constitutional validity of section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), and the legality of the orders made thereunder levying tax under section 6 of the 'Act'. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : The petitioner is a partnership firm dealing mainly in paddy and rice. The business of the petitioner consists in the purchase of paddy from growers and converting the same into rice and selling it. 3. Section 6 of the 'Act' reads as follows : '6. Levy of purchase tax under certain circumstances. - Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 5, every dealer who is the course of his business purchases any taxable goods in circumstances in which no tax under section 5 is leviable on the sale price of such goods and, (i) either consumes such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise or ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›