Karnataka Court February 1983 Judgments

A.N. Rangappa and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka I and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1984]145ITR250(KAR); [1984]145ITR250(Karn)

Puttaswamy, J. 1. A partnership firm called, A. N. Rangappa and Sons, consisting of five partner constituted a partnership firm under a deed of partnership dated November 20, 1975, for carrying on the business set out in that deed. The firm has been registered with the Restorer of Firms under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Central Act 9 of 1932). On March 20, 1976, the firm filed an application under s. 184 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), before respondent No. 2 for registration of the firm for the assessment year 1976-77. On March 27, 1979, respondent No. 2 rejected the said application (annex. E), the correctness of which was challenged by the firm before respondent No. 1 in a revision under s. 264 of the Act. On November 19, 1979, respondent No. 1 has rejected the said revision petition and has affirmed the order of respondent No. 2. In this petition under area. 226 of the Constitution, the firm has challenged the aforesaid o...

K.S.R.T.C. and anr. Vs. T.i. Aron

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1983KAR351; 1983(1)KarLJ555; (1983)IILLJ300Kant

1. This appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.3.1981 passed by the V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in OS. No. 335 of 1980, on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for with costs. 2. Plaintiff was a driver in the BTS division of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, (now Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation). On 13.8.68, the plaintiff was given charge of a bus in the BTS division to run on the daily schedule. It was handed over to him a little earlier than the schedule time; first to avoid rush at the gate and secondly to reach the starting point in time. The plaintiff took the bus to reach the starting point in Jayanagar. On the way, as there was time, he stopped the bus in front of a hotel in Wilson Garden in order to take a cup of coffee as he was having gastric trouble. On the doctor's advice, he had to take some food frequently in order to avoid gastric trouble. So, he stopped the bus to ta...

Suresh Krishnaji Patil and ors. Vs. Shankarappa Shidrayappa Balekundri ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1983Kant226; ILR1983KAR376; 1983(1)KarLJ404

Heard.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously argued that there was a fundamental defect in the presentation of H. R. C. application, namely, H. R. C. application H. R. C. No. 15/1969 inasmuch as the lawyer who presented the petition did not file a proper Vakalath in the sense that the Vakalath he filed before the Court was not duly signed by the party. Neither the Court nor the other side noticed this fact and the proceeding went on as if everything was quite regular. Ultimately, H. R. C. Petition No. 15/69 came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner-landlord. An appeal was instituted against the said decree for eviction and the appeal was dismissed and the matter was brought to this Court in a Civil Revision Petition and the C. R. P. was dismissed on 7-3-1974 and the order of eviction became final. It is thereafter that the tenant instituted O. S. No.164/80 before the Prl. Civil Judge, Belgaum praying for a declaration that the decree obtained for eviction ...

Y. Muralikrishnan Vs. the Bangalore University and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1983Kant230

ORDER1. This petition is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents and after hearing the counsel for the parties.2. The petition is directed by a student Y. Muralikrishna against the action of the first respondent-Bangalore University in Withholding the results of his performance at the first year B. E. Degree Examination held in the month of Aug., 1982 by the University. The petitioner is the student of Sri Siddartha Institute of Technology, Kunigai Road, Maralur, Tumkur. He joined that Institute, which is a private educational institution, on payment of Capitation Fee prescribed by that Institute/College and was not one of those students selected by the Selection Committee constituted by the Government of Karnataka in that behalf. The State is the third respondent.3. The Regulations framed by the University for the 4 Year B. E. Degree Courses, among other things, provide for eligibility for admission. A student desiring to enter any Engineering C...

Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR536; 1984(1)KarLJ82

Venkatachaliah, J.1. This Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is moved by Ashok Kumar on behalf of his brother-H.C. Ravindra, who is detained pursuant to the order of detention No. HD 60 SDF 82 dated 17th December 1982 made by the State of Karnataka under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'). The order reads :ORDER WHEREAS, the Government of Karnataka are satisfied with respect of the person known as Sri H.G. [email protected]. Ravi & Ravi kumar & H.Raju. S/o H. Gangadharappa of Davangere, Karnataka State that with a view to preventing him from engaging in concealing and transporting smuggled goods, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said Sri H.G. Ravindra @ H.G. Ravi @ H.Raju be detained. NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(l)(iii) of the conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. 1974, the Govern...

H.G. Ravindra and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Venkatachaliah, J.1. This petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus is moved by Ashok Kumar on behalf of his brother H. G. Ravindra, who is detained pursuant to the order of detention No. HD 60 SDF 82 dated 17 December, 1982 made by the State of Karnataka under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'). The order reads : ORDERWHEREAS the Government of Karnataka are satisfied with respect of the person known as Sri H. G. Ravindra @ H. G. Ravi alias Ravi kumar alias H. Raju, S/o. H. Gangadharappa of Davangere, Karnataka State that with a view to preventing him from engaging in concealing and transporting smuggled goods, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said Sri H. G. Ravindra alias H. G. Ravi alias H. Raju be detained. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activitie...

Sri Maruthi Enterprise Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1983(2)KarLJ358; [1984]55STC335(Kar)

ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. M/s. Maruthi Enterprises, the petitioner in this petition; was granted recognition by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), under entry 28 of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in respect of the petitioner's industry, namely 'wire-cut bricks', by Certificate No. 144/75-76 dated 23rd March, 1976, as per annexure B. It may be mentioned that though the date from which such recognition was given effect is stated as 6th January, 1976, in clause (vi) of the conditions annexed to the grant, the certificate is deemed to be valid from 28th February, 1975, till the date of cancellation. 2. On 12th May, 1978, a show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner as per annexure D calling upon the petitioner-firm to show cause why the recognition certificate issued on 23rd March, 1976, should not be cancelled. The first paragraph of the said no...

Channabasappa B. Gaddi Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1984Kant24; ILR1983KAR700

ORDER1. This Writ Petition is by Chairman of the Village Panchayat of Maranbad, Hangal Taluk, Dharwad District, He was aggrieved by an order the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Savanur, dated 4-9-1981 accepting the purported resignation tendered by him to the Chairmanship of Panchayat of the aforementioned Village Panchayat. He, therefore, preferred a Revision Petition to the Divisional Commissioner the 1st respondent, under Section 207 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Revision Petition came to be dismissed sustaining the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking relief Inter alia contending that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Divisional Commissioner suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record and also that the resignation was sent to the Assistant Commissioner by his opponents in the Panchayat making use ...

The Food Inspector Vs. V.V. Gangadharan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1983CriLJ1732

P.A. Kulkarni, J. 1. The appeal by the Food Inspector, City Municipal Council, Mangalore is directed against the judgment of acquittal dt. December 21, 1981, passed by the I Additional C.J.M. Mangalore in C.C. 121/1979 acquitting the accused of the offence under S. 16(1)(a) read with S. 7 of the Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The material facts leading to the case on hand are as under : On 31-3-1979 at about 7-30 a.m. the complainant PW-1 found the accused selling milk from a can kept in the autorickshaw MYG 5300 which had been parked in front of the Rajeshwari Bhavan hotel Boloor in Mangalore City. The Food Inspector purchased 750 ml. of milk from the accused for the purpose of analysis and paid Rs. 1.50 as the price thereof. He obtained a receipt from the accused as per Ex. P. 2. The Food Inspector PW-1 sampled the milk purchased from the accused in the presence of the accused and panch witnesses as per the procedure laid down under the Act and the rul...

K. Adinarayana Vs. S. Mariyappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1984(1)KarLJ449

Venkatachalaiah, J.1. Heard Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi for the complainant. Contempt complained of in this case is that the accused have violated the order made by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1382 of 1982, in which the Division Bench reversing the interim order made by the learned single Judge, substituted an interlocutory order, which reads thus : 'In the result, we allow this appeal, reverse the order of the learned single Judge and make an interim order directing that neither the Police nor the Revenue should assist either of the parties to dispossess the party who may be in possession of the disputed land, pending disposal of the writ petition.' 2. It is now complained of by Smt. Hemalatha Mahishi that the Revenue and the Police authorities have notwithstanding the above order, taken the liberty of assisting accused 1 to 4 to harvest the standing-crop and are thereby guilty of a wilful disobedience of the order of this court. Whatever might be the other remedies complainant m...