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.
Paramanand L. Bajaj Vs. Commr. of Wealth Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1532
1. The question that has been referred for the opinion of this Court is :"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer had jurisdiction to invoke Section 35 of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 ?"2. The facts behind the legal formulation lie in a narrow compass.The assessee is a partner of a firm called "Mangoomal Vijayakumar" in which he had l/3rd share. In the assessment of that firm for the year 1972-73, the bad debt of Rs. 37,674/- was disallowed by the Income tax Officer. But * TRC No. 34 of 1978 dated 16th July 1984 in the assessment under the Wealth Tax Act pertaining to the assessee, that 1/3rd share of the bad debt was not included. The Wealth-Tax Officer invoked Section 35 of the Wealth-Tax Act and rectified that mistake.The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and so too the further appeal preferred to the Appellate Tribunal.3. It is not in ...
Management of Senapathy Whiteley Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2050
ORDERRama Jois, J.1.In this Petition presented by the Management of Senapathy Whiteley Ltd., Ramanagaram, Bangalore District, the following important question of law arises forconsideration :Whether the State Government has the power under Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) to withdraw a reference pending before the Labour Court and transfer the same dispute to an Industrial Tribunal?2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : (i) on 18-9-1981, the State Government made an order under Section 10(1) of the Act referring certain points of dispute between the Petitioner-Management and its workmen for industrial adjudication to the Additional Labour Court. In all sixteen points of dispute were referred for adjudication under this order.(ii) On the same date the Stale Government made another order (Annexure-B) by which another industrial dispute between the Petitioner-Management and its workmen was referred for industrial adjudication under Section 10...
Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Ashok
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR559
Sabhahit, J.1. These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 2-12-1980 made by the Civil Judge, Gadag, in L.A.C. No. 6/1979 on his file, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 3.50/- per gunta in addition to compensation paid to the structures, trees and well.2. 9 acres of land were notified for acquisition for development of Horticulture in Gadag, pursuant to thepreliminary notification dated 20-12-1973. The lands were situate at the outskirts of Gadag City within the municipal limits. The Land Acquisition Officer suggested the compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre in addition to compensation for structures, trees and well. Aggrieved by the said amount of compensation awarded, the claimants got the case referred to the Civil Judge, Gadag. The Learned Civil Judge, Gadag enhanced the market value to Rs. 350/- per gunta. He also enhanced the compensation for structures and trees as also for the well. Aggrieved by the said award, the LandAcquisition Officer and Asst....
Dr. Appasaheb Shattappa Adke Vs. Smt. Annapurna Devi by Lrs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR675
ORDERNesargi, J.1.The request in I. A. No. 1 is for condonation of delay in refiling: I. A. No. 1 has been filed on 16-2-1984. The appeal has been presented on 12-12-1983. The request in I. A. No. 2 is also for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal. This has been filed on 2-7-1984. I. A. No. 3 also has been filed on 2-7-1984 with a request for extension of time for payment of deficit Court fee. I.As. 2 and 3 are supported by the affidavit of Sri Shivraj Patil, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. I.A. No. 1 is supported by the affidavit of the clerk of the learned Advocate.2. Examination of the records and scrutiny of the report of the Appeal Examiner disclose, that the appeal was presented on 12-12-1983, the memorandum of appeal being incomplete, as there there no grounds of appeal, it was not even signed by the party or the learned Advocate, and a Court fee of Rs. 10/- only was affixed. In regard to the remaining aspects, like furnishing of the certified c...
T.S. Mahadevaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Kant185
ORDER1. Through this petition is posted for orders, having regard to the fact that it can be disposed of on a short point it is taken up for final disposal.2. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner had sought for quashing the order dt. 29-3-1984 passed by the second respondent, bearing No. FSD. PRO. 75/83-84 (Annexure C) suspending for a period of six months from the date of the order the licence issued to the petitioner for running the Rice Mill known as Manjunatha Rice Mill, B, G. Palya Tumkur, in No. RML 4/76 dt. 16-7-1976.3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as per Annexure A, alleging that the petitioner had not surrendered 50% of the total quantity of rice obtained by milling paddy in the mill, and that amounted to misrepresentation to the licencing authority under S. 7 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner had...
Sri Mahaveer Touring Talkies and Etc. Vs. the District Magistrate, Man ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Kant208
ORDER1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, I propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. In exercise of the powers conferred by the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Government of Karnataka has framed, the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which came into force from 15-3-1971.3. Part IV of Chap. XII of the Rules regulate the grant of 'No Objection Certificate' (hereinafter referred to as the NOC), licences and re-grant of licences to touring cinemas. Rule 98 as originally framed, did not provide for stoppage of licences granted to touring cinemas. But, by notification No. GSR 130 dt. 16-4-1974, a new sub-rule was added to Rule 98 regulating the stoppage of touring cinemas for a period of one month and the same which is material reads thus: -'No licence in respect of a site shall be granted or re-granted continuously for a period exceeding one year unless one...
State Bank of Mysore Vs. R. Shammanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR738; 1984(2)KarLJ318; (1985)ILLJ297Kant
Hakeem, J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 16th October, 1981 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6240 of 1978 quashing the order dismissal of the respondent. The learned Judge has reserved liberty to the appellant-Bank to pass a fresh order against the respondent after issuing a show cause notice with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows : The respondent was a manager in one of the branches of the appellant-Bank at the relevant point of time. The internal audit of the Bank showed some irregularities said to have been committed by the respondent. On that count he was placed under suspension with effect from 26th May, 1972. On 2nd March, 1974 a notice was issued to him to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken on the alleged misconduct. 3. In the meanwhile, it appears, a criminal case was instituted against the respondent and two others under the provisions of the pre...
Bangalore University Vs. Y.R. Satyanarayana Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR325; 1984(2)KarLJ305
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Bangalore University and the Principal of the University of Visvesvaraiah College of Engineering are the appellants. The appeals are directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petitions Nos. 10731 of 1978 and 8215 of 1979.2. The matter arises in this way :The College of Engineering at Bangalore maintained by the then University of Mysore was one of the reputed Under-Graduate Colleges. Upon the constitution of the Bangalore University under the Bangalore University Act, 1964 (Mysore Act No. 26 of 1964), that College stood transferred to the Bangalore University under Section 68 of the said Act and has been since renamed as 'University of Visvesvaraiah College of Engineering.'On May 10, 1966, the Government approved the introduction of Post-Graduate Courses in Civil and Mechanical Engineering at the said College.For the purpose of governing the several Universities in the State, the State has enacted a common Act called 'The Karnataka...
Dasegowda Vs. Election Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3305
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Though this Petition is posted for orders, having regard to the fact that it can be disposed of on a short point and also it relates to the election to be held to the office of the President of the City Municipal Council, Hassan, which has been stayed ; it is taken up for final disposal itself.2. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Calendar of events, dated 30-12-1983 bearing No. Municipal (3) C.R. 99/83-84 (Annexure-A) issued by the Election Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, Hassan, for the purpose of holding an election to the office of the President of the City Municipal Council, Hassan, which is necessitated due to the death of the President on 3-12-1983. The petitioner is one of the Councillors. Respondents 2 to 6 are the other councillors, who have filed their nominations seeking election to the office of the President of the City Municipal Council, Hassan.3. At the outset, a ...
Rajivi Heggadathi Vs. Rathnavathi Heggadathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3038
ORDERKulkarni, J.The brief facts are :1. The first judgment debtor who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 89/1971 filed a suit for injunction against the present petitioner and another. She obtained a temporaryinjunction and an order for attachment of 75 cart loads of fuel lying in the suit property. The amin attached 75 cart loadsof fuel and he on taking a surety bond in the name of the Court released the said attached fuel and gave it in the custody of judgment-debtors 2 and 3, who executed the surety bond. The suit came to be dismissed on 16-8-1973. After the dismissal of the suit, the sureties did not return the fuel to the decree holder. Thus, she is entitled to get back 75 cart loads of fuel from the sureties by filing theexecution.2. The judgment-debtors contended that there was no decree or order passed by the Court at all. Thereforequestion of forfeiting the surety bond does not arise and they are not liable to pay any sum.3. The Learned Counsel Sri Hegde for the revision petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »