Karnataka Court July 1984 Judgments
Medical Research Laboratory Private Limited Vs. K.C. Ajith
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant95; ILR1984KAR510; 1984(2)KarLJ267
Nesargi, J.1. This matter has been placed before us on an order of reference dated 26-6-1984, made by Sri Kulkarni, J. being of opinion that the following question arises for consideration by a Division Bench:-'Whether a revision p6titioner, against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act is entitled to prefer or prosecute a revision under S. 50 of the Act or under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order made on an application under S. 21 or against an order made under Section 29(l) or 29(4) of the Act, without paying to the landlord or depositing with the court all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises, as required by S. 29(1) of the Act, on the ground that the dispute regarding the question of relationship of landlord and tenant is not decided finally by the revisional court itself or is still pending decision in the revisional Court?'This question finds a place in para. 19 of the order of...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Basheer Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR298
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1.This Petition is directed against the transfer order dated 18-4-1983 by which the Petitioner has been transferred from Ramnagar to Nagamangala. He is an employee of the*W.P. No77783 of l984 Dated 31at July 1984Department of Industries and Commerce. He holds the post of Assistant Training Instructor at the Artisan Training Centre, Ramanagar. The said order is said to be illegal and therefore not enforceable against him inasmuch as it is opposed to the policy enunciated by the Government in what purports to be the clarification circular issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government .Such clarifications have been issued from time to time, the one on which he strongly relies upon is dated 11-3-1983, a copy of which is at Annexure-E.2. These Official Memorandums have fallen for consideration before this Court in a number of other cases earlier. This Court has taken the view that these are no more than declarations of policy and governs the relationship betwee...
Tag this Judgment!Bidar Sahakar Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR973; [1985]58STC65(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. These two petitions raise a common question as to the power of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (called shortly the 'Act'). S.T.R.P. No. 76 of 1980 is concerned with the assessment for the year 1971-72 and S.T.R.P. No. 75 of 1980 relates to the assessment for the year 1972-73. The assessee is a co-operative institution having a sugarcane factory at Bidar. In the Trading (and) Profit & Loss Accounts accompanying the returns for the said years, the assessee had included certain expenses incurred in the purchase of sugarcane to the factory. The assessing authority while concluding the assessment had omitted to include those charges in the taxable turnover. But the Deputy Commissioner in the exercise of his powers under section 21(2) of the Act set aside the assessment and directed the assessing authority to redo the assessment by including in the purchase turnover, the said expenses incurred by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i.C. Vs. Management of Kirloskar Systems Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: [1984(49)FLR438]; ILR1984KAR965; (1985)ILLJ173Kant
Sabhahit, J.1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation demanded contribution with regard to the subsistence allowance of the employee, who was under suspension. That was challenged before the Employees' Insurance Court, Bangalore, by making an application under S. 75(1) of the Employees' State Insurance Act. 2. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation resisted the petition. According to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, any amount paid to the Employee, during the subsistence of the relationship of master and servant would constitute wages.The Employees' Insurance Court raised the following issues as arising for its consideration : (1) Whether the subsistence allowance is wages as defined in the E.S.I. Act (2) What order The Employees' Insurance Court, after considering the facts and arguments addressed before it, came to the conclusion that the subsistence allowance paid to an employee during the period of suspension would not amount to wages and, in that view, the appl...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Raju Vs. Executive Director
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: ILR1983KAR189; 1985(1)KarLJ231; (1985)ILLJ210Kant
ORDERMalimath, C.J.1. This appeal is by the workman M. C. Raju challenging the order made by the learned single Judge on 12th October, 1982 dismiss his Writ Petition No. 34992/82. 2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case may be stated as follows : The appellant was in the service of the respondent from the year 1947. After he attained the age of 55 years the respondent gave him an extension of service for six months. On the expiry of the extended term he was sought to be retired from service with effect from 1st October, 1982. The appellant made a request to the respondent to continue him in service until he attains the age of 58 years, as per Annexure-C, on the ground that the Model Standing Orders prescribed under the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), have been amended with effect from 11th March, 1982 by inserting Clauses-15A providing 58 years as the age for retirement or superannuation of a workm...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Ahmed Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1285; [1985]58STC213(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These revision petitions raise a common question as to the validity of refusal by the assessing authority to rectify the assessment order under section 25-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. P. K. Ahmed, the petitioner, was one of the two partners of the dissolved firm by name M/s. Malnad Saw Mills, Mangalore. The firm did business in timber, firewood and saw-dust during the period from 1st October, 1974 to 30th September, 1976. The firm had filed a return of turnover in form No. 4 prescribed under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act during the year 1974-75. The firm was dissolved with effect from 1st October, 1977. 3. The assessing officer issued proposition notice to individual partner fixing the date of hearing on 22nd October, 1977. That notice was served on the petitioner on 25th October, 1977 and the other partner A. Mohammed on 17th October, 1977. Obviously the petitioner could not be heard on 22nd October, 1977. The other partner did not present himself f...
Tag this Judgment!Shesh Venkataraman Jathar and ors. Vs. Vigneshwar Damodar Dixit and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR1044; 1984(2)KarLJ292
Nesargi, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 7-3-77 passed by the District Judge, North Kanara at Karwar in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 49 to 53 of 1972, respectively. These miscellaneous applications were filed by the five appellants under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Each one of the appellants requested the District Judge that he be appointed a trustee for the administration of Shri Mahableshwar Dev Gokarn Temple as the two respondents, who were functioning as trustees had incurred disqualification under one or the other Clauses available in Section 47 (1) (a) to (h) of the Act. Each one of the appellants narrated in his application certain details as to how he was duly qualified to be appointed as a trustee.3. By the order dated 8-3-1972, the then District Judge, allowed the applications and appointed them as trustees, along with 2 respondents in these appeals, thereby making the total number of trustees ...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Sarsetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR727(KAR); [1987]163ITR727(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the two transactions dated February 5, 1969, entered into by the assessee with M/s. B.S. Munavalli of Gokak were speculative transactions within the meaning of the expression 'Speculative transaction' in Section 43(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. For the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee, who is a merchant in groundnut, kapas, cotton and cotton-seeds claimed a deduction of Rs. 35,150 paid to M/s. B. S. Munavalli of Gokak for non-delivery of certain quantities of cotton under the agreement dated February 5, 1969. As per the terms of the agreements, delivery of the cotton was required to be effected and repeated demands by the buyers were also unheeded by the assessee. On May 23, 1969, a sum of Rs. 35,000 was...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Bhimappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR1023
Ramakrishna, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the Judgment and Order dated 11-1-1980 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1979. By the said order, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the respondents-accused of the charge of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., read with Section 149 I.P.C. However, he convicted A-2 and A-13, having found them guilty, for the offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C, and, giving benefit of Section 360 Cr. P.C., released them on admonition on executing a bond, without sureties, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during three years and to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.2. The facts of the case, as disclosed by the Order under appeal are as follows :-All the respondents-accused 1 to 13 are the residents of Petlur village, Mudhol Taluk, Bijapur District, while A-13, hav...
Tag this Judgment!Srimathi Indira Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Kar)319; [1984]150ITR351(KAR); [1984]150ITR351(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J. 1. This case was posted before me today for orders, But, as agreed to by both sides, this case is treated as listed for final hearing today and is accordingly heard. 2. A house property bearing No. 307 situated at Someswara Extension, Tumkur City, was owned by respondent No. 3, who on October 17, 1982, entered into an agreement to sell the same to the petitioner. On July 22, 1983, respondent No. 3 executed a sale deed in her favour in terms of that agreement to sell and presented the same on that day before the Sub-Registrar, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sub-Registrar'), for registration. The petitioner claims that she has paid the balance of sale price to respondent No. 3 and the registration charges before the Sub-Registrar who has made those endorsements in the original document and notwithstanding all this, the Sub-Registrar had refused registration of the said sale deed on the ground that the vendor-respondent No. 3 had not produced before him a certifica...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »