Karnataka Court April 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.
Ananth Gopal Pai Vs. Gopal Narayan Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2607
ORDER1. Gopal Narayana Pai who is the respondent herein is about 76 years. Petitioner Ananth Gopal Pai is his son. 2. Gopal Narayana Pai filed an application in the Court of the J.M.F.C. Kumta, D.K. under S. 125 of the Criminal P.C., 1973 for maintenance against Ananth Gopal Pai. Admittedly Gopal Narayana Pai resides in Kumpta Town and Ananth Gopal Pai has been residing at Bangalore. 3. After notice to Ananth Gopal Pai he raised a preliminary objection therein stating that, that Court had no local jurisdiction to entertain that application and therefore it should be dismissed. The learned Magistrate having heard both sides on this aspect of the case by his order dt. 13-6-1983, has held, for the reasons stated by him that he has jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the application. 4. Counsel for Ananth Gopal Pai taking me through the relevant provisions of the Code submitted that the finding of the trial Court on this question was not in accordance with law and therefore setting ...
M.H. Aquill Vs. Union Bank of India, Madikeri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant120; ILR1984KAR171
ORDER1. The order dated 28-2-1984, passed by the Civil Judge, Kodagu in Execution case No. 57 of 1983, is challenged.2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent-decree-holder commenced execution in the said case for the recovery of decretal amount to the tune of Rs.60, 000/- including interest. Ultimately, the petitioner judgment debtor was detained in Civil Prison after an enquiry under an order dated 12-12-1983. The order detaining him in Civil Prison was passed on 30-1-1984. The Executing Court thought it just and appropriate to detain him in the Civil prison for one month from 30-1-1984. That one month expired on 28-2-1984. Hence, the petitioner was brought before the Executing Court on 28-2-1984 from the Civil Prison.3. On 28-2-1984, the respondent-decree-holder requested the court to pass an order of detention of the petitioner for a further period of two months. That request had been granted by passing the impugned order.4. Sri. S. G. Bhagavan, learned Advocate appearing on ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Century Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1984
Reported in: [1992]197ITR282(KAR); [1992]197ITR282(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Department seeks a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard before levying interest under section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even where the assessment is concluded under section 143(3) ?' 2.A similar request made before the Tribunal has been rejected on the ground that the matter has been concluded by the decision of this court in CIT v. Executors of the Estate of Late H. H. Rajkuverba Dowager Maharani Saheb of Gondal : [1978]115ITR301(KAR) . It is not disputed that the matter is concluded by the said decision. We asked learned counsel for the Department whether that judgment has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court Counsel is not able to supply us with any precise information. The question raised is,...
Executive Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. Sudeg ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant54
ORDER1. As common question of law has arisen in all these civil revision petitions, they have been heard together and this common order is passed.2. The petitioner Karnataka Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) filed suits against the respective respondents for arrears of dues due to the Board regarding the consumption of electrical energy, penalty etc. Decrees were passed in favour of the Board. The Board filed respective execution cases under 0.21of the Civil PC. Two contentions were put forth in the execution proceedings. The first contention was that the execution is incompetent and the executing Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the execution in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 79 of 1976. It may be stated here itself that this contention has been repelled by the executing Court. Sri P. D. Karigouda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in C.R.P Nos. 2308 of 1980 and 2315 of 1980, did not, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›