Karnataka Court April 1983 Judgments
Madhukar Daso Deshpande Vs. Anant Nilkantha Deshpande and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant40; 1983(2)KarLJ15
1. This appeal by defendant No. 4-A is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-8-1980, passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Belgaum, in R. A. No. 28/1980 on his file dismissing the appeal as barred by time.2. The appeal was filed on 28-1-1980. Even taking into consideration the time taken for supplying the certified copies the appeal should have been filed on 25-1-1980. Therefore, there was clear delay of three days in filing the appeal. There was no application for condonation of delay. Hence, the learned Civil Judge held that the appeal was barred by time and dismissed the appeal. It is against such judgment and decree that the present appeal is instituted.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before me that though the learned Civil Judge mentioned that there was delay of 25 days, in fact, there was delay of only three days. Such delay was inevitable, because, he had to come from Gokah to Belgaum to file the appeal. The certified copies were obtained by h...
Tag this Judgment!J.H.M. Kataria Vs. Collector of Bombay (Rst) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1983
Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Kar)193
ORDER : Puttaswamy, J. - Prior to 9-2-1974, the petitioner was indisputably carrying on business in stainless steel articles in Bangalore under the name and style M/s. Kushal Enterprises. But he claims that on 9-2-1974, he sold the same to one Beeregowda as a running concern and is not doing business from that day.2. On 29-9-1977, the Collector of Bombay, Recovery of Sales Tax, Bombay, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) issued two Revenue Recovery Certificates (Exhibits C and D) u/s 3(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act 1 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the collector of Bangalore who is called as Dy. Commissioner and will hereinafter be referred to as the DC to recover a sum of Rs. 5,347.60p. In the one certificate and a sum of Rs. 1,079.76 p. in the other as arrears of sales tax due from the petitioner to the State of Maharashtra.3. On the basis of the aforesaid certificates and the orders made thereto by the DC, the Special Tahs...
Tag this Judgment!Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society, Gulbarga and ors. Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Kant251
Chandrakantaraj URS, J.1. In all the above petitioners, the petitioners are aggrieved by the Government Order bearing No. ED/168/TGL/80 Bangalore dated 5th Sept., 1981. They have alleged that the said order is without legal competence, without jurisdiction and violative of the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Arts. 19(1)(c), 19(1)(e) of the Constitution as well as Art. 14 and the right conferred by Art. 300-A of the Constitution. Several Counsel appearing for the different petitioners have addressed arguments while the learned Advocate-General has addressed arguments on behalf of the respondent- State. There are, in all 25 petitions. The petitioners are mostly societies registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, each represented by its President or in some cases by the members of the Governing Body. Two of the petitioners are Public Trusts and petitions are filed by the trusts as well as by the trustees.2. In the course of this order, a detailed referenc...
Tag this Judgment!Subbegowda Vs. Honnamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant41
1. These two appeals have arisen out of a common judgment and decree dated 10-10-1980 of the Principal Civil Judge, Mandya in R. A. Nos. 96 and 97 of 1979 on his file. 2. The appellant Subbegowda was the defendant and respondents Honnamma and Jayalakshmi were respectively plaintiffs 1and 2 in O. S. No. 199 of 1974 on the file of the Munsiff. Nagamangala Honnamma is the wife of Subbegowda and Jayalakshmi is their child. In the suit they had filed, the plaintiffs had claimed maintenance from the defendant. The Munsiff decreed the suit by his judgment dated 16-8-1976 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month for Honnamma and Rs. 15/- per month for Jayalakshmi from the date of his judgment and also created a charge against the plaint schedule properties.3. Being aggrieved by the decree awarding compensation Subbegowda preferred R. A. No. 96 of 1979 and not being satisfied with the quantum of maintenance and the insufficiency of the charge, the plaintiffs preferred R. S. No. 97...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer, Xiv Circle, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1983
Reported in: 1983(2)KarLJ56; [1983]54STC369(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. One K. Neelakanta Iyer of Bangalore who was carrying on business under the name and style of Rajkamal Enterprises, at No. 8/2, II Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9, was a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the CST Act). He died on 7th February, 1975, leaving behind him his mother Smt. Lakshmi Ammal, petitioner No. 1, his wife Smt. Vijayalakshmi, petitioner No. 2, and his daughter Miss Lakshmi, petitioner No. 3, as his legal representatives. 2. When Neelakanta Iyer was alive, he had been assessed to sales tax under the Act for the years 1965-66 to 1971-72 and for the years 1965-66 to 1967-68 under the CST Act and had been issued with demand notices for payment of taxes determine for the said years. On the non-payment of taxes, interests and penalties had been imposed and coercive proceedings had...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›