Karnataka Court December 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.
K.S. Muthukali Chettiar Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Kar)157; ILR1985KAR650; [1986]159ITR477(KAR); [1986]159ITR477(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. In Writ Petitions Nos. 2535 and 236 of 1975 and Writ Petitions Nos. 13724 to 13727 of 1978, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in Writ Petitions Nos. 3353 and 3354 of 1975, the petitioner has challenged the validity of section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. The facts in each case are simple and as follows : (i) W. Ps. Nos. 2535 and 2536 of 1975 : K. S. Muthukali Chettiar is the common petitioner. For the assessment year 1970-71, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Range-I, Bangalore, on May 1, 1974, passed an order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, l961, imposing a penalty of Rs. 40,140 on the petitioner for concealing an income of Rs. 40,134.Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated February 21, 1975, dismissed the appeal. For the assessment year 1971-72, the Income-tax Officer, Ass...
Gunderao Vs. Jagnnathasingh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1625
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. This Revision Petition by the tenant is directed against the order of the Addl. District Judge, Gulbarga, dated 16-4-1982 made in Civil Misc. Petition No. 18 of 1982.2. The Miscellaneous Petition was filed under Order 41 Rule 19 C. P. C. for restoration of the Civil Revision Petition-No. 36 of 1981. In Civil Revision Petition No. 36 of 1981, the order of the I Addl. Munsiff, J.M.F.C., Gulbarga, made in H.R.C. No. 41 of 1979 by which an order was passed against the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the schedule premises before 30-10-1981 was challenged before the Learned District Judge. The said Revision Petition was dismissed on 6-2-1982 for non-prosecution. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Petition for restoration under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. This Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed by the Learned District Judge on the ground that the said Petition was not maintainable in law and he was of the opinion there is no provision for re...
Gopalakrishna Textile Mills Vs. Workmen
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3340
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner Gopalakrishna Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., Subramanyapura, Bangalore, has prayed for quashing the order of the State Government made under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, referring certain points of dispute for industrial adjudication to the 2nd Additional Labour Court, Bangalore.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :By order dated 16th April, 1983 (Annexure-A) the State Government referred the dispute concerning the termination of the services of 48 workmen specified in the said order, by the petitioner, for industrial adjudication. Even as the said dispute is pending before the Labour Court, the State Government made another order dated 23-6-1983 (Annexure-B). It reads :'Whereas the Government of Karnataka are of opinion that an Industrial Dispute exists between the workmen and the management of Gopalakrishna Group of Textiles, Bangalore on the points noted below :And whereas the Government of Karnataka ...
Dhariwal Silk House Vs. General Manager, Telephones
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1992; 1985(1)KarLJ242
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This petition was heard for sometime on 7-12-1984 and it was directed to be brought up to-day to enable Sri Shailendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent, to seek further clarification from the respondent, Accordingly, this matter is posted to-day in the orders category, but it is taken up for final disposal itself.2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the telephone bills (Annexures C, E & G) issued by the respondent in respect of the telephone bearing No. 70550 installed in the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the communications produced as Annexures H, J and K.3. The bill ending for the quarter 1981 was issued to the petitioner in the month of November 1981. The petitioner failed to pay the same, within the period allowed in the bill. Accordingly, the telephone came to be disconnected in the first week of December 1981. Thereafter, another bill for ...
P. Kannan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Kar)273; [1985]154ITR441(KAR); [1985]154ITR441(Karn); [1987]30TAXMAN594(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was an adventure in the nature of trade (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the title in lands vested in the assessee and the sales effected by the assessee were no avoid (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the true profit earned by the assessee from the sale of plots during the year ending March 31, 1970, can be ascertained and are liable to tax ?' 2. The facts that we could gather from the statement of the case are these : 3. The assessee is a building contractor. The assessment year concerned is 1970-71. On March 15, 1968, he purchased a land measuring 20,131 sq. yds. in the heart of the city of Mysore from H.H. Mah...
Basappa and ors. Vs. Garemane Kamanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR912; 1985(1)KarLJ207
Murlidher Rao, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of remand dated 30-1-1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Madhugiri in R.A. No. 67/79. The said appeal was filed against the order of the Additional Munsiff and J.M.F.C, Madhugiri on issues 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 21/1977. By the said order, which is dated 28th June 1979, the Learned Munsiff, dismissed the suit.2. The admitted facts are, that the defendant executed a pronote on 26th March 1974 for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. The plaintiff filed the suit on 12th June 1977. In the said suit, the following issues were raised;1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has complied with the pro-visions of the Money-Lenders Act and the suit is tenable?2. Whether the defendants are 'Agriculturists' within the meaning of the term as defind in the (Mysore) Karnataka Agriculturists Relief Act ?3. Whether the defendants prove that the said promissory note is not supported by consideration ?4. Whether the defendant prove that they are not liable to pay th...
Basha Vs. Shaik Hyder
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1093; 1985(1)KarLJ340
Murlidher Rao, J.1. This is defendant's appeal, against the injunction granted in O.S. No. 89 of 1982, by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, vide order dated 3-4-1982.Respondent is a manufacturer of 'Beedi' called by its trade name 'Nehru Beedi' the production is done at Anekal, in Bangalore District, since February 1966. It is claimed that the commodity is very popular and has gained tremendous 'good will'. Plaintiff has obtained the requisite licence from the competent authorities. In January 1982, the plaintiff came across with the 'Beedi' with similar trade name, as his, and in same type of wrapper. On enquiry, he got the information that the commodity is manufactured by the defendent, who was manufacturing Beedies under the trade name 'Maharaja Beedi'. The name, wrapper and size of bundle was very much identical, customers could easily be deceived. The plaintiff therefore instituted the present suit for a passing off action. In the suit, he prayed for injunction, restr...
Dharam Rao Vs. Shankarappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Kant10; 1985(1)KarLJ245
ORDER1. This is a decree-holder's revision against the order dt. 12-7-1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gulbarga, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 29 of 1979 confirming the judgment dt. 22-10-1975 passed by the principal Munsiff Gulbarga, in Misc. Case No. 10 of 1971 setting aside the sale. 2. It is undisputed that the decree-holder after obtaining the decree sued out the execution and brought the property of the judgment-debtor to sale. It is undisputed that the decree holder with the permission of the Court bid the property for Rs. 1,700/-. It is also undisputed that the decree amount is Rs. 600/-.3. The sale was held on 9-1-1970. The amount was deposited on 12-3-1970. The sale was confirmed and the decree-holder was put in possession of the property also. 4. Thereafter the judgment-debtor filed the present Miscellaneous Case before the Munsiff stating that the purchase money had not been deposited within 15 days as required by O.21, R. 84, C.P.C. The sale was null and void an...
Chief Marketing Officer Vs. Sudhakar Krishnappa Kamath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Kant169
Mahendra, J. 1. These appeals arise out of Writ Petitions filed by Employees Of Agricultural Produce Market Committees.2. In V. L Bhat, Giri, G. K. Bhadri and S. P. Pawar v. the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Haliyal, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Haliyal and the Chief Marketing Officer, Bangalore, W. P. Nos. 1,1368,11368A, 11368B and 11368C of 1979, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, hereinafter referred to as the 'Market Committee' passed resolutions proposing to revise the pay scales of the petitioners. The salary and allowances payable to the petitioners were included in the Budget for that year and the proposed Budget was also approved by the Chief Marketing Officer hereinafter referred to as the 'C.M.O.' The Market Committee decided to give effect to its resolutions revising the pay scales without waiting for the approval of the C.M.C. The Secretary of the Market Committee informed the petitioners by its letter Ext. D. that the resolutions ...
Dharam Rao Vs. Shankarappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1051
ORDER 21 RULE 85 - Rule applies also to decree-holder Is Mandatory -- If purchase money not deposited within 15 days sale becomes null and void -- Court bound to order re-sale.Rule 85 clearly says that while calculating the amount to be so paid into Court, the Purchaser shall have the advantage of any set-off to which he may be entitled under Rule 72. Therefore, Rule 85 of Order 21 C.P.C. applies equally also to the decree-holder. It is a mandatory provision even though the auction-purchaser might be the decree-holder What Rule 85 of order 21 C.P.C. prescribes is that if the decree-holder. is entitled to any set-off, he must deposit the remaining amount within 15 days from the dace of sale. But it does not enable him to deposit the money as and when he pleases.... The deposit not having been made within the statutory limit of 15 days, the Court is bound to order re-sale because the sale already conducted being in violation of Rule 85 is null and void.It is not necessary either for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »