Karnataka Court October 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.
Peirceleslie India Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR339; [1985]59STC302(Kar)
ORDERHakeem, J. 1. This revision petition under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 12th June, 1978 passed is S.T.A. No. 153 of 1976 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, confirming the levy of purchase tax under section 6 of the Act in respect of the turnover of raw cashewnuts for the assessment year 1st October, 1970 to 30th September, 1971. 2. The petitioner, which is a company, is a dealer carrying on business in cashewnuts, chemical, fertilisers, copper sulphate, gunny bags and other commodities. The petitioner is also having its cashew factory and coffee curing works. For the period from 1st October, 1970 to 30th September, 1971 the petitioner-company declared the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 3,85,90,385.96 and Rs. 71,50,695.93 respectively. The assessing authority rejected the declared turnover and estimated that same at higher figures. In this petition, however, we are concern...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1
ORDER OF REFERENCEVenkatachaliah & Rama Jois, JJ.14th June 1982Per Venkatachaliah, J.Held :This appeal involves a question of some importance which requires to be settled by pronouncement of a Full Bench. The Bench decision of this Court in ITRC 37 of 1973 on which the Revenue relies was, apparently, not cited before the Learned Single Judge. That decision might require reconsideration in the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Question of law referred for the opinion of the Full Bench :Can the Commissioner of Income-Tax entertain assessee's Revision Petition under Section 264 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, preferred from a part of the appellate order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against which the assessee is aggrieved during the pendency or after the disposal, as the case may be, of the Department's second appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal preferred against another part of the same order where the subject-matters of the appellate and revisional pro...
Nagavva Vs. Tukaram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1036; 1985(1)KarLJ184
ORDER XXI RULE 103-- Party claiming present possession of the property not being the Judgement-debtor, against whom order under Rule 98 or Rule 99 or both is passed is enabled to file a suit to establish his right -- Order under Rule 98 against auction-purchaser is in proceedings under Section 47 -- Auction-purchaser cannot maintain a separate suit -- Right of appeal available to auction purchaser -- Party vested with right of appeal cannot institute a separate suit for getting the order/decree set aside.The person who can bring a suit by virtue of Rule 103 of Order XXI of C.P.C. cannot be the person who seeks to establish the right he claims to the present possession of the property, That person has to establish the right for possession of the property and not to maintain the presentpossession of the property. The present possession would always be with the person who has obstructed taking over the possession of the property on his own account or an account of some person whom he may ...
Jainabhi Vs. Krishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1923
ORDERHakeem, J.1. This is the tenants Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment dated 10th October 1980 in H.R.C. (Revision) No. 18 of 1978 passed by the District Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar.2. The landlord sought for eviction of the tenants on the grounds under Section 21(1)(a)(b)(f) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Upon consideration of the material on record the Trial Court i.e., the Principal Munsiff, Sirsi, dismissed thePetition by his order dated 17th August 1978 in H.R.C. No. 14 of 1962. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal the landlord preferred a revision under Section 50 of the Act to the District Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, who set aside the decision of the Trial Court and allowed the eviction Petition under Clauses (b) and (f) of Section 21(1) of the Act and ordered eviction of the tenants, viz., the petitioners herein.3. The facts of the case in so far as they are re...
Patel Bettegowda Vs. Coorg and Mysore Coffee Co., Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR273; 1985(1)KarLJ53
Venkatesh, J.1. This is defendant's second appeal. The Respondent plaintiff had filed against him the suit in O.S. 71/71 on the file of the Munsiff, Srirangapatna, for recovery of a sum of Rs.9974-43 and interest thereon with court costs. The suit was on the foot of a pronote dated 16-12-1968 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to pay on demand the aforesaid sum.2. Resisting the suit claim the defendant inter alia contended that he had not executed the pronote in question and further denied his liability thereunder. His case was that his son was an employee under the plaintiff, used to work as a store keeper in one of its branch establishments; that alleging that he (defendant's son) had misappropriated some goods belonging to it and entrusted to him the plaintiff was threatening to prosecute him; that in view of that threat, under duress and being forced, he (the defendant) had executed a bond in favour of the plaintiff ; that it was only a ...
G. Ramakrishna Aithal Vs. Y. Varadappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant182; 1985(1)KarLJ181
ORDER1. This is revision by the Judgment-debtor (Jdr.) against the order dated 11-1-1984 passed by the IXth Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City in execution case No. 3656 of 1983 holding that the execution petition is maintainable and that the Court has got jurisdiction to execute the decree.2. The Jdr. filed an eviction petition in HRC Case No. 355/68 in the Court of the I Munsiff, Bangalore City for recovering possession under S. 21(l)(j). It was dismissed by the trial Court. Then the matter was taken up by the landlord to the District Judge in HRC Appeal No. 23/1974. The District Judge allowed the appeal and ordered the eviction under S. 21(l)(j). The tenant approached this Court in CRP 774 of 1976. In CRP 774/1976 they entered into a compromise. On 25-7-1980, a decree in terms of the compromise was ordered to be drawn up, by this Court.3. After the compromise decree was drawn up, the landlord obtained a sanctioned plan. It is undisputed that he has put up a cellar an...
Ramakrishna Aithal Vs. Varadappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR551
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the Judgment-debtor (Jdr.) against the order dated 11-1-984 passed by theIXth Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City in execution case No. 3656 of 1983 holding that the execution Petition is maintainable and that the Court has got jurisdiction to execute the decree.2. The Jdr. filed an eviction Petition in HRC Case No. 355/68 in the Court of the I Munsiff, Bangalore City for recovering possession under Section 21 (1) (j). It was dismissed by the Trial Court. Then the matter was taken up by the landlord to the District Judge in HRC Appeal No. 23/1974. The District Judge allowed the appeal and ordered the eviction under Section 21 (1) (j). The tenant approached this Court in CRP 774 of 1976. In CRP 774/1976, they entered into a compromise. On 25-7-1980, a decree in terms of the compromise was ordered to be drawn up, by this Court.3. After the compromise decree was drawn up, the land-lord obtained a sanctioned plan. It is undisput...
Venkataswamy and ors. Vs. Ningamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR918
Murlidher Rao, J.1. This appeal is by the defendants-1 to 4 challenging the order of the V Addl. City Civil Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore dated 23-6-1984, by which the Learned Judge has rejected the application I.A.4 filed by these defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. and has made theexparte injunction absolute. In coming to thisconclusion, the Trial Court has perused the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff which primafacie shows that the plaintiff is in possession off the property. As against that, the defendants have not produced any receipts. Defendants i to 3 are thepurchasers from defendant No. 4. The materials show that the plaintiff has established the prima facie case that she is in possession of the properties and therefore she is entitled to injunction.2. At this stage Sri Kulkarni, Advocate appearing for the appellants, submitted that it is the impression which is expressed in para 17 of the impugned order, that has influenced the conclusion of the Court be...
Management of Belgaum D.C.C. Bank Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1635
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The Management of Belgaum District Central Co-operative Bank Limited has presented this Writ Petition praying for quashing the award of the Labour Court, Hubli, setting aside the order of the Management-petitioner dismissing second respondent from service.The facts of the case in brief are as follows :1. Respondent No.2 was holding the post of Secretary in the service of the District Central Co-operative Bank, Belgaum. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him in respect of certain misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. He was found guilty of the charges framed against him. The finding was accepted by the petitioner and an order dated 30th October 1976 (Annexure-A) was made imposing the penalty of reduction in rank by reverting him to the post of Second Division Clerk. On receipt of the said order, the second respondent addressed a letter dated 4-11-1976 to the petitioner. In the said letter inter alia he stated that so long the penalty order ...
Mohammad Iqbal Vs. Bhimaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1984
Reported in: [1987]61CompCas435(Kar); ILR1984KAR1358
Sabhahit J.1. This appeal by the owner of the vehicle in question is directed against the judgment the award dated December, 6, 1983, made on I.A.I. given by the claimants ordering that Rs. 15,000 shall be paid over by the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle, as compensation under section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to the claimants. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the amount of Rs. 15,000 awarded under section 92A should have been directed to be paid by the insurer, third respondent, in this appeal, as the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident, and the award made was within the liability limit of the insurer. 3. On June 6, 1983, deceased, Shrimanth, aged about 6 years, was involved in a motor accident that occurred at 4.00 p.m. on Gulbarga-Sedam Road in front of the Government General Hospital. The bus - HKMS Service No. MYN 3510 - caused the accident, resulting in the death of the young boy, namely, Shrimanth. His father made a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »