Karnataka Court July 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.
N. Srinivasamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR722
ORDERMahendra, J.1. On a reference made by Chandrakantharaj Urs,J. this Writ Petition is posted before us for hearing.2. The Petitioner - Srinivasamurthy who was a Police Constable has challenged his dismissal in this Writ Petition.3. The facts of the case are these :The Petitioner was a Police Constable attached to Chamarajpet Police Station in Bangalore City. On a written complaint made by one Chandriah making certain allegations of misconduct against him the Circle Inspector of Police, Central Sub-Division, held a preliminary investigation and submitted his report on 23-4-1973 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Bangalore City, who after being satisfied that a prima facie case existed for further action, made an order suspending the Petitioner from service with effect from 4-5-1973 and appointed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Bangalore City, as an Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority framed the following charges.'That you, Sri Sriniv...
Management of Charak Bhandar Vs. Presiding Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR248
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these Petitions the Petitioner-the Management of the Charak Bhandar, Evergreen Industrial Estate, Bombay has questioned the legality of the reference made by the State Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act as also the two orders of the Labour Court made on preliminary issues.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : The Petitioner is a partnership firm and is an industry as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act (shortly the Act). Respondents-2 and 3 were engaged as commission agents and medical representatives in this State. Their services were terminated by the Petitioner with effect from 27-5-1974. Aggrieved by the order of termination respondents-2 and 3 raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. As there was no agreement between the parties a failure report was submitted to the State Government. Thereafter the State Government by an endorsement dated 4-3-1977 (Ex. A) refused to refer the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B. Narasimha Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Kar)322; ILR1985KAR1538; [1984]150ITR347(KAR); [1984]150ITR347(Karn)
Jagannatha shetty, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the sale of sites was assessable as capital gains and not as business profits ?' 2. The assessee along with his son jointly purchased a plot of land situated at Vijanpura village in Krishnarajpura, Hubli, Bangalore north taluk. The land was located within the urbanized area adjacent to big factories, like I.T.I., Kemp Son & Co., etc. They purchased the land in 1962 from an agriculturist as agricultural land. But no attempt was made by the assessee or his son to cultivate the said land. The land was left fallow up to 1969, in which year the assessee obtained permission to convert the land for non-agricultural purposes. Immediately thereafter, he formed layout with the laid out plots as house sites and sold some of the...
Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Unique Enterprises
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR1289
Narayana Rai Kudoor, J.1.This Regular First Appeal is by the defendant in O.S. No.681/1984 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, directed against the Decree dated 19-4-1984 decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the plaintiff has the benefit of the deemed commencement certificate/change in land use certificate from public and semi-public use to commercial use in respect of the plaint schedule property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its officers, workmen, or anyone claiming under it from enforcing the endorsement dated 25/31-5-1982 issued by the defendant calling upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs by way of penalty.2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint, briefly stated, is as follows :The plaintiff, a partnership concern, became the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from its previous owner under a registered sale deed dated 5-3-1980. The vendor of ...
Jayadeva Printing Press Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC13; 1984(18)ELT272(Kar)
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in printing works. It is a partnership concern. It has been in the field of printing for over 3 decades. With a view to import a printing machine known as 'Heidelberg GTO 12 5/8 x 18' (32x46 cm), single colour offset press of 1975, the petitioner sent an application dated 14-2-83 to the 2nd respondent for grant of import licence to import the aforesaid machine. Pursuant to the application, the petitioner was asked by the 2nd respondent to fill up the form and also to comply with certain other requirements. Accordingly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements and the application is in proper order. But the 2nd respondent has rejected the application on 19-7-1983 (Annexure F) on the ground that the machine sought for import is too old to be allowed and it will be difficult to produce/procure spare parts of the machinery if it goes out of order. It is the validity of this order which is challenged in t...
General Mechanical Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1534; [1985]151ITR752(KAR); [1985]151ITR752(Karn); 1984(2)KarLJ280
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there should have been a specific order in writing under s. 184(7) giving effect to continuance of registration to the assesses-firm for the assessment year 1974-75 before the ITO could cancel the registration under s. 186(2) ?' 2. The question required by the assessee for reference was not in this form. The assessee suggested the following two questions : '(1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that registration to the assesses-firm was rightly cancelled under s. 186(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75 1(2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether registration for the assessment year 1974-75 can be cancelled without first granting the registratio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Kar)260; [1985]151ITR247(KAR); [1985]151ITR247(Karn); 1984(2)KarLJ303
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These references under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are at the instance of the Revenue.2. The common question referred is :' 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 is entitled for relief under Section 80J of the Act '3. The assessee is a registered firm with its head office at Hubli. It established a new industrial undertaking unit at Ponda in Goa and claimed relief under Section 80J for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1976-77. The ITO disallowed the assessee's claim on the ground that borrowed moneys and debts owed by the assessee exceeded the value of the assets of the industrial undertaking as on the first day of the accounting period.4. On appeal, it was urged on behalf of the assessee that the amounts invested by the head office in the branch unit at Ponda should not be treated as borrowed capital since the head office had enough capital of its own. ...
A.M. Obedulla Vs. S.M. Shafi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR690; 1984(2)KarLJ263
ORDER15th March 1984Sabhahit, J.1. This Revision Petition by the tenant is directed against the Order dated 14th July 1981, made by the VII Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Civil Station, Bangalore in H.R.C. No. 6564/80 (Old H.R.C. No. 599/77), allowing the Petition of the landlord for eviction of the tenant underClause (h) of proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The landlord let out a vacant site to the tenant for carrying on timber business. The tenant had got up atemporary shed and was carrying on business. The landlord, by a notice dated 1-6-1977 demanded possession of the suit premises for his personal occupation bona fide andreasonably. He wanted to construct a building in the vacant land for which he had obtained the sanction of the local authority. The landlord averred that after putting up the building he wanted to carry on his business in timber in the ground floor of the building and use the first - floor for other purposes.3. The tenant ...
Bharata Ratna Mokshgundam Viswaswaraiah Education Society Vs. the Dist ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant163
ORDER1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for quashing the notice dated 11-5-1984 bearing No. SOC (ENQ) 122/81-82 (Annexure-C), passed by the District Registrar, Kolar Dist, Kolar. This notice is issued by the respondent to the petitioner to show cause as to why an action for appointment of an Administrator under S., 27A of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') should not be taken.2. Sri W. K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has advanced the following three points for consideration :1) That an enquiry under S. 25 of the Act is going on for the last two years and it is the respondent, who is conducting the enquiry and it is almost coming to a close; therefore, pending that enquiry, the present notice Annexure-C issued for taking action under S. 27A of the Act is not justified; 2) That simultaneous proceedings under Ss. 25 and 27A of the Act are not permissible; and 3) That, a...
K.M. Chandrasekhar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2401
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1) In all these Petitions, the petitioners are the Millers. They have sought for quashing the notices issued to them as per Annexures A-l to A-11 in W.P. Nos. 3404 to 3414/84 and Annexures Al-to A-8 in W.P. Nos. 3422 to 3429/84 respectively.2) By the aforesaid notices the Tahsildar has demanded delivery of certain quantity of paddy or rice, as the case may be, towards the levy on the basis that the levy so far surrendered by them does not commensurate with the paddy hulled by them, having regard to the units of electricity consumed by them.3.1.) The case of the petitioners is that they are customary millers ; that they do not purchase and sell paddy nor do they hull their own paddy in the mills ; that they only hull the paddy brought by others, in their mills and collect the hulling charges ; that they are not even the dealers within the definition of the word 'dealer' as defined in the Karnataka Food grains (Wholesale) Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 (hereinafter refe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »