Karnataka Court August 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.
Shivashankar Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR303
ORDERChandrakantaraj URS, J.1. The Petitioner is working as Statistical Assistant in the Directorate of Economics and Statistics in Karnataka. By an order made by the Director dated 15th May 1984 the Petitioner has been placed under suspension. Aggrieved by the same, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief praying for the quashing of the said order which is at Annexure-A to the Petition inter alia, contending that the order is made without proper application of mind and without satisfaction being recorded, that the suspension has become necessary on the facts and circum-stances stated in the order.2. In order to appreciate the above contentions as well as the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it would become necessary to set out the operative portion of the order in question.'Office Order No. Adm./103/1984-85In his letter dated 18-4-1984 referred to at (2) above, the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore District has inform-ed this...
M.R. Thammiah Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Madikeri and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1305; [1984]150ITR403(KAR); [1984]150ITR403(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. These three revision petitions arise out of the reassessment proceedings under s. 36 of the Karnataka Agricultural I.T. Act, 1957 (called shortly the 'Act'). 2. For the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81, the petitioner returned the income as that of a HUF, but he has included only his share income from the family properties. After hearing the petitioner's representative, the assessing authority recorded a best judgment assessment. The assess did not put forward the plea that there was a partition in his family even though there was one. Subsequently, the assessing authority got the information that the amounts received from the Coffee Board in the names of the assessee's sons from the family properties were not included in the taxable income of the HUF. He issue a notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why there should not be a reassessment under s. 36 of the Act in respect of the income concealed by the assessee. There was no reply to that ...
State of Karnataka (Through Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Reported in: [1984]150ITR382(KAR); [1984]150ITR382(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Whether an order under s. 21 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (the 'Act') is appealable or not is the short question raised for consideration in these revision petitions. 2. For the years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer (AITO) concluded assessments under s. 19(4) of the Act in respect of the agricultural income of the respondent who did not respond to any of the notices issued. 3. The respondent-assesses moved the Agrl. ITO with an application under s. 21 of the Act with an affidavit and medical certificate for cancellation of the said assessment orders. In the affidavit in support of that application, he has stated that he was suffering from diabetes and blood pressure since a very long time and, therefore, could not attend the office punctuality nor able to comply with the terms of notices issued to him. The Agrl. ITO dismissed the application disbelieving the averments of the respondent with an observation that he ha...
Visvarama Hotels Ltd. Vs. Anjuman-e-imamia
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Reported in: ILR1983KAR223; 1984(2)KarLJ185
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Civil Revision Petition No. 2221 of 1982 is filed by defendant-2 and is directed against the order dated 8-7-1982 of the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No- 8041 of 1980 brought by Respondents 1 to 3 as Plaintiffs in that suit. Civil Revision Petition No. 2995 of 1982 is filed by the State of Karnataka against the very same order of the Learned Judge. But, in that case the State has filed a memo on 30-3-1983 praying for permission to withdraw the same, which has given rise to Writ Petition No. 7525 of 1983 by one Sri G.P. Shivaprakash, an Advocate of this Court. In the course of my order hereafter, I will refer to those who are parties in O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 by their array in that suit, the State of Karnataka, Petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2995 of 1982 which is Respondent-I in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 1983 as the State and Sri G. P. Shivaprakash, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 198) as the Petitioner.2. In order to appreciate the severa...
State of Karnataka Vs. B.G. Desai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1300
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J.1. Whether an order under Section 21 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1957 (the 'Act') is appealable or not is the short question raised for consideration in theseRevision Petitions.2. For the year 1969 - 70 and 1970 - 71, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer (A.I.T.O.) concluded assessments under Section 19(4) of the Act in respect of the agricultural income of the respondent who did not respond to any of the notices issued.The respondent assesses moved the A.I.T.O. with an application under Section 21 of the Act with an affidavit and medical certificate for cancellation of the said assessment orders. In the affidavit in support of that application, he has stated that he was suffering from diabetes and blood pressure since very long time and, therefore, could not attend the office punctually nor able to comply with theterms of notices issued to him. The A.I.T.O. dismissed the application disbelieving the averments of the respondent with an observa...
M.M. Jamadhar Vs. Amirbi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant91; ILR1984KAR1310
ORDER1. These three revisions by the revision petitioners are directed against the order dated 10-4--1981, passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum, in Execution Case Number 304 of 1.981, allowing I. A. No. 1, thereby directing delivery of actual possession of the property in possession of these revision petitioners, under O . 21 R. 35(l) of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). 2. The material facts are that one Khutejabi and another Hafizabi, filed Special Suit No. 100 of 1952 in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Belgaum, against 23 persons, for partition and possession. The present revision petitioners were defendants Nos. 13, 14 and 15. As can be seen from the copy of the plaint in Special Suit No. 100 of 1952, produced along with the revision petition, it is mentioned by the plaintiffs in para No. 6 that defendants 8 to 19 are tenants and they are made parties to the suit with an intention that while taking the possession of the properties, t...
Hajaresab Vs. Udachappa Deceased by L.Rs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR900
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This revision by the decree holder is directed against the order dated 3-7-1979 passed by the Munsiff, Kundagol, in Execution Case No. 3 of 1977.2. The decree holder plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.30 of 1972 against one Udachappa, the husband of L.R.No. 1 (d) and father of L.R. Nos.l (a) to l(c) for a declaration that he was a tenant of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining him (Udachappa) from interfering with his possession. The said suit was decreed in 1973 against Udachappa. Udachappa's appeal in R.A.No. 180 of 1973 was dismissed on 24-7-1974.3. The decree holder sued out the present execution in 1977 alleging that notwithstanding the permanent injunction decree against Udachappa, his L.Rs. l(a) to (d) have started interfering with his possession of the suitproperty. Thus, according to him, the legal representatives have willfully failed to obey the decree. Hence, he filed the execution praying for arrest and detention under Order 21 Rule ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Datacons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Kar)162; ILR1985KAR1109; [1985]155ITR66(KAR); [1985]155ITR66(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and the question of law referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in treating the assessee either as a manufacturer of goods or as engaged in the processing of goods within the meaning of section 2(7)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977 ?' 2. The assessee is a company. It claimed that it was an industrial company as defined under s. 2(7)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977. If it was an industrial company, it would be entitled to be taxed at a concessional rate. The ITO rejected that claim and assessed the income by applying normal rate of taxation, but in appeal before the AAC, the assessee succeeded. 3. The Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments, made a local inspection of the assessee's premises to know what the assessee was really doing. The members of the Tribunal personall...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Metal Lamp Caps (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR822(KAR); [1987]163ITR822(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, has been referred : 'Whether in view of the earlier order of the Tribunal, the Income-tax Officer having found the facts stated therein to be correct, had no jurisdiction to disallow the relief under section 80J in respect of Goliath Screw Caps manufacturing unit ?' 2. The assesses-company, which had been set up to manufacture metal lamp caps for electric bulbs, had started manufacturing a new type of cap known as 'Goliath Screw Caps' during the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1969-70. The question whether the assesses-company was a new industrial undertaking entitled to the benefit of section 80J came up for consideration before the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 644 (Bang)/1972-73 which was disposed of on August 17, 1973, with the following observations : 'As regards Goliath Screw Caps manufactured, from the way in which it was explained before us, it appears to be an entirely new item unco...
B. Vasudeva Rao Vs. K. Laxminarayana Bhatta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR1075; 1984(2)KarLJ354
ORDER1. This revision by the decree - holder is directed against the order dated 3-1-1979 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Udupi in Execution Case No. 174 of 1976, holding that the execution petition abated.2. The decree-holder sold some lands to one Sharadamma on 9-9-1959 by a registered sale deed for Rs.10, 000/-. Sharadamma did not pay the entire consideration. She paid Rs.6, 250/- to the decree-holder towards the consideration and thus the remaining amount of Rs.3, 750/- remained in her hands as unpaid purchase money. Sharadamma in turn sold a portion of the property (purchased by her) to the judgment-debtor K. Lakshminarayana Bhatta under a registered sale deed Exh. D.1 dated 15-2-1965 for Rs. 4,000/-. By that sale deed, she left Rs. 3,750/- in the hands of the judgment-debtor for paying it to the decree-holder towards the unpaid purchase money. The judgment-debtor in turn sold a portion of the property purchased by him to one Nerva Poojary, with a direction that he should pay Rs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »