Karnataka Court January 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mulgund and Co. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1984
Reported in: [1984]55STC339(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31st October, 1978, made by the Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 3/78. It relates to the scope and ambit of section 5(3-A) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('Act'). 2. The petitioner-firm filed a return for the accounting period from 20th October, 1971, to 5th November, 1972, stating that its total, exempted and taxable turnovers for the year are Rs. 13,27,230.01, Rs. 4,59,161.88 and Rs. 8,68,158.13 respectively. It also contended that the latter turnover was liable to tax at 2 per cent under section 5(3-A). The assessing authority rejected that contention and assessed the turnover to tax at 3 per cent and 3 1/2 per cent under section 5(1) of the Act. On 21st April, 1977, the petitioner claimed that its sale transactions had the support of form 37 and therefore liable to be taxed at the concessional rate provided by section 5(3-A) and the levy at the rates prescribed under section 5(1) was an apparent mist...
Sheena Naik Vs. Lawrence D'Souza
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Kant202; 1984(2)KarLJ63
ORDER1. This Revision Petition is by the tenant who is aggrieved by an order D/15-1-1981 made by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, at Mangalore, in Civil Revision Petition No. 135/1979 on his file, allowing the Revision Petition of the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises. 2. This landlord instituted a petition for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises before the second Additional Munsiff, Mangalore in HRC No. 212/1976, on his file. He sought eviction of the tenant Linder Cls. (a) and (h) of the Proviso to S. 21(l), Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. He averred that the respondent in the petition was a tenant under him on a monthly rental of Rs. 15/- and it was formerly used by him as a bathroom before he leased the room in favour of the tenant. His family in the meanwhile had enlarged and his daughters had come of age. Therefore, he required a separate bathroom inside the house and it was for that purpose that he sought for eviction of the tenant from ...
Rokyayabi Vs. Ismail Khan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Kant234
V.S. Malimath, Ag.C.J.1. After admitting this appeal, with the consent of the learned counsel for the contesting parties, we heard the matter finally today.2. The first respondent alleges that he filed an application for grant of occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, Tiptur, under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That application having been rejected, he has challenged the order of the Tribunal in Writ Petition No. 42230/82. After the appellant, owner of the lands, was duly served, she made an application 1. A. I for appointment of a receiver in respect of the lands in question. The learned single Judge has rejected the said application on merits observing that the averments in the application, if at all may justify the appellant seeking an appropriate interim order of injunction and not an order of appointment of a has further held that the application for appointment of a receiver is not maintainable. Hence this appeal. 3...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›