Karnataka Court March 1983 Judgments
M. Visweswaraiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1983
Reported in: ILR1983KAR707; [1983]53STC416(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On 16th August, 1978, the Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Davanagere - respondent No. 2 - (hereinafter referred to as the ACTO), searched the business premises of the petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and seized certain account books and documents and issued an order on the same day (exhibit A) to that effect under section 28(3) of the Act. On 21st August, 1978, the same officer has collected a sum of Rs. 10,464 from the petitioner as taxes due for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 and a sum of Rs. 5,000 as composition fee under section 31 of the Act. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order made by the ACTO on 16th August, 1978 (exhibit A). 2. The petitioner claims that the ACTO was not authorised by law to search his premises and seize the documents, levy taxes, collect comp...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mariappa Vs. A.K. Sathyanarayana Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant50
1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-9-1978 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in Regular Appeal No. 70 of 1976, on his file, dismissing the appeal, on confirming the judgment and decree dated 25-2-1976 passed by the II Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore in Original Suit No. 697 of 1970 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff partly.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 1170/-.3. According to the plaintiff, House No. 2, near Bandi Reddy Circle, Lakshminarayanapuram, Sriampura, Bangalore, was leased to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 130/-. The tenancy commences on the first of calendar month. The defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent of Rs. 1,170/- which became due towards rent up to 8-10-1967, the defendant failed to pay the areas of rent. On 5-2-1968, he paid Rs. 700/-. That was received without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff. On giving credit to that...
Tag this Judgment!Basavalingamma (by L. R.'s) and Ors. Vs. Sharadamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant27; 1983(2)KarLJ20
1. This appeal by the defendants in O. S. No. 18 of 1977 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8-3-1982 passed by the District Judge, Chitradurga in R. A. No. 23 of 1981, on his file, allowing the appeal in part and giving a decree in favour of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of 1/15th share in B Schedule properties with costs of the lower court and directing enquiry for the purpose of mesne profits as provided under O. 20, R. 12, C. P. C. and further directing that a preliminary decree be drawn accordingly. The judgment and decree dated 21-2-1980 passed in O. S. No. 18 of 1977 were accordingly modified.2. The, plaintiff is the widowed daughter-in-law of Siddappa. Siddappa had two sons, namely, Rajappa and Nagaraja and two daughters namely, Sharanamma, and Saraswathamma. The plaintiff is the widow of Rajappa who died after 1956. The plaintiff instituted a suit earlier at O S. No. 37 of 1963 for separate possession of her 1/3rd share which devolved on her...
Tag this Judgment!Chennabasappa Kothambari Vs. Multiplast Industries (Karnataka) Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1983
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas222(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This petition in presented by one Chennabasappa Kothambari purporting to be a petition under s. 433(e) and (f) read with ss. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The prayers in the petition are for an over winding up the first respondent-Multiplast Industries (Karnataka) P. Ltd., Hospet; for a declaration that the notice dated May 25, 1982, issued by the company, a copy of which is at Ex. Q to the petition to be illegal, void and not enforceable against the petitioner and pass an order directing the respondent-company to forbear from exercising its lien on the fully paid-up shares held by the petitioner hand from selling the said shares. In the alternative, he has prayed that the respondent-company and its directors be directed to transfer the share held by the petitioner for a fair present market value and pay the sale proceeds to the petitioner forthwith. 2. To summarise the averments in the petition, the following f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›