Karnataka Court March 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.
Kurumberhall Estate a Vs. State of Karnataka (Through the Commissioner ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1984
Reported in: [1984]148ITR577(KAR); [1984]148ITR577(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This revision arises out of the order of the Commissioner, dated August 25, 1980, made under s. 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (called shortly 'the Act'), setting aside the assessment order, for the year 1975-76 and also cancelling the registration of the assessee-firm. A firm styled as 'Kurumberhalli Estate 'A'' was evidenced by an instrument of partnership, dated April 8, 1969, with effect from April 1, 1969. It comprised of four partners, namely, (1) M C Mathew, (2) M C George, (3) M M Chandy and (4) Chandy George. The firm was granted registration under s. 29 of the Act. 2. Under clause (13) of the deed of partnership, it was provided that in the case of death of any partner, the representatives in the interest of the deceased partner shall be entitled to become a partner on the same terms as the deceased partner. 3. On February 16, 1975, M C George died leaving behind his wife. By reason of cl.(13) in the deed of partnership, she, as...
Sri Vardhaman Stanakvisi JaIn Sravak Sangh Vs. Chandrakumar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR889
ORDERNarayana Rai Kudoor, J.These two applications have been filed by an alleged Trust called Sri Swamy Sangli Muneswara Temple Trust (Regd), No. 17, St. John Church Road, Civil Area, Bangalore 1, represented by its Secretary.1. The. application I. A. No. II is one under Order I Rule 10 C. P. C. to implead the applicant as on additional respondent in the above appeal. I.A. No. Ill is an application under Order 39 Rule 4 C. P. C. to vacate or modify the interim order dated 12-1-1984 passed on I.A. No. I.2. The plaintiff Sri Vardhaman Stanakvisi Jain Sravak Sangh in O.S. No. 956/1983 on the file of the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, is the appellant and the defendants N. Chandrakumar and Venkatesh in the suit are the respondents in this appeal. The plaintiff has brought the suit against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint-schedule property. The case of the plaintiff was that...
C.M. Aleemullakhan Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1984
Reported in: [1984]148ITR696(KAR); [1984]148ITR696(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the order of the Commissioner, dated July 18, 1978, made in AIT. S.R. No. 22/77-78, made under s. 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), directing the Agrl. ITO to assess the income of the assessee as an association of individuals and not as tenants-in-common. 2. A certain Sattar Khan died leaving behind, his wife, son and daughter with some agrl. lands. The son was managing the entire estate including the shares belonging to his mother and sister. For the years 1971-72 to 1975-76, the Agrl. ITO assessed the income of the estate treating the heirs of the deceased as tenants-in-common. But the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional powers thought that treating the assessee as a tenant-in-common was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and he called upon the assessee to show cause why the assessment should not be set aside and why the agrl. income should not be brought to tax treating t...
Narayana Bhatta Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4147
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of preliminary hearing. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri S. Udayashankar was directed to take notice on behalf of the Respondent and to obtain the instructions in the matter. Accordingly, he has secured instructions and has put in appearance for the Respondent, Hence the Petition is taken up for final hearing.2. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the endorsement bearing No. STASP, PR. 11130/83-84, dated 15-3-1984 issued by the Respondent returning the application filed by the petitioner for grant of special permit in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No. CAA 612 from Madras to Mangapura, Tirupathi and back to Madras and for taking empty vehicle from Bangalore to Madras and vice versa.3. The application is returned on the ground that the 'request for issue of special permit cannot, be examined to satisfy that the application is for its bona fide purpose of tour as r...
Ramanatha Vs. Kusuma and State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR1054; 1984(2)KarLJ126
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. The common question of law that arises for consideration in these two proceedings relates to the ambit and scope of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the code).2. In both these proceedings the Learned Magistrates had issued process to the accused on private complaints.The offences alleged were exclusively triable by the Court of Session. In Kusuma's complaint the allegation was that the accused was liable to be proceeded against for an offence under section 376 I.P.C. In the other matter (Cr.R.P.655/83) complainant Saraswathamma's case was that the accused were liable for an offence of kidnapping or abduction etc. In Saraswathamma's case, when the accused entered appearance pursuant to the summons issued to them, they were committed to the Court of Session; but the Learned Sessions Judge, Kolar, has discharged the accused under Section 227 of the Code holding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding aga...
Nazarabad Plantation Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1984
Reported in: [1984]150ITR499(KAR); [1984]150ITR499(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the order dated February 13, 1980, made by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, under s. 35 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (called shortly 'the Act'). 2. The assesses-firm purchased a coffee estate on October 29, 1971. In addition to the consideration paid under the sale deed, the assessee separately paid Rs. 50,000 to the vendor towards what was described as the expenditure incurred by the vendor for cultivation of the estate for the period from April 1, 1971, to August 31, 1971. 3. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee filed an application in Form No. 7 for registration of the firm enclosing a copy of the partnership deed. That application was not signed by all the partners personally. Two of the partners, namely, Mohammed Imam Nissar and Mohammed Maqbool Hussain, did not sign, but their authorised agents have signed the application on their behalf. The assessing officer, however, accepte...
Mysore Lamp Works Vs. State and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR778
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these three Writ Petitions presented against the Orders of the State Government refusing to refer the dispute relating to dismissal from service of each of the petitioners by the concerned management, for industrial adjudication, the following important question of law arises forconsideration :Whether the decision of the Government not to refer a dispute between a workman of an industry and its management jo respect of imposition of penalty of dismissal or removal from service of the workman, on the ground that approval had been accorded to the order of dismissal by an order made by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is valid ?2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :-(i) W. P. No. 17184/80 : The Petitioners in this Writ Petition are the Mysore Lamp Works represented by the President of the Mysore Lamp Works Employees Association. One Shankar was an employee of the Mysore Lamp Works Limited. A disc...
V.G. Krishnamurthy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: [1985]152ITR683(KAR); [1985]152ITR683(Karn); [1985]20TAXMAN65(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. For the assessment year 1975-76 relevant to the accounting year ending with March 31, 1975, the petitioner filed his return under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), before the Income-tax Officer, Assessment 9, Circle-I, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'ITO'), disclosing a net income of Rs. 1,02,492. On an examination of that return, but without following the mandatory requirements of s. 144B of the Act that had come into force from January 1, 1976, the ITO on January 5, 1979, completed the assessment (Ext. A) enhancing the declared income of the petitioner to Rs. 3,05,582 or Rs. 3,05,580 and issued to him a demand notice thereto under the Act. 2. Against the said order of the ITO, the petitioner has filed an appeal under s. 246 of the Act before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'AAC') of Income-tax, Range-I, Bangalore, challenging it on diverse grounds. Even before the AAC could hear the said a...
Noorera Papu Vs. Machimada Kushalappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR901; 1985(1)KarLJ174
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is preferred against the order dated 17th August, 1983, passed by the District Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, in H.R.C.R.P. No. 21/81, confirming the order of eviction passed under Section 21(l)(a) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. (hereinafter-referred to as the 'Act') by the Principal Munsiff, Virajpet, in H.R.C. No. 27 of 1978.2. Respondents 1 to 4 were the landlords of the premises in question. Petitioner was the tenant. The monthly rent of the permises was Rs.35/-. As the Petitioner had fallen in arrears of rent, the respondents sent a notice dated 29-3-1978 by registered post. The same was not received by the Petitioner-tenant. After refusal of the notice sent by registered post, the respondents got the notice affixed on the outer door of the premises in question on 2-4-1978 and filed the Petition for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) and (j) of the Act, on 28-8-197 ; in the Cou...
Bhoomareddy Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR854(KAR); [1987]163ITR854(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These are references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act on the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the power to enhance the penalty levied by the Income-tax Officer under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b) for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1961-62 ?' 2. The assessee was an association of persons. For the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62, the Income-tax Officer levied penalty under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In appeals against that order of the Income-tax Officer to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Tribunal, it was held that the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the assessment years in question and the penalty levied was unauthorised. It was accordingly set aside. On a reference to this court in I.T.R.C. Nos. 32 to 37 of 1968, the High Court held that penalty could be validl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »