Karnataka Court September 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.
Guruvappa and anr. Vs. Manjappu Hengsu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR386; 1985(1)KarLJ51
Nesargi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13-9-1977, passed in W. P. No. 8050 of 1977, which had been preferred by the appellants and came to be dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing. In the said Writ Petition, the order dated 29-6-1977, passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore, in RT 832-75-76, was sought to be quashed.2. As the Writ Petition has been dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing, we do not consider it absolutelynecessary to go into the actual reasons put forth in the impugned order. We deem it just and appropriate to go to theconsidered order of the Land Tribunal itself in exercise of the appellate powers The order of the Tribunal which is at Ext. 'A', discloses that Respondent-1 Manjappu Hengsu filed Form No. 7, informing the Land Tribunal that the lands in question are the leasehold Lands of herself, the Appellants, Respondents 2, 6, 7. She requested that as all of them are tenants of the lands in question, all of them be registered as occ...
Rayappa Thimmappa Hulekal Vs. Annapurnabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR585; 1985(1)KarLJ194
ORDERKulkarni J.1.The present revision by the decree-holder arises out of the order dated 20th October, 1978 passed by thePrl. Munsiff, Sirsi, in Execution 79/76, dismissing the Execution Petition.2. The decree-holder had filed a suit in the year 1969 against the present Judgment Debtors ('Jdr' for short) 1 to 3 alleging that one Vishweshwar Subray Hegde was due money to him at the foot of the account opened by him in his shop. Jdr. No. 1 is the mother of the borrower, Jdrs. 2 and 3 are the brothers of the borrower, Vishweshwar. The Jdrs were sued by the plaintiff-decree holder. The decree-holder filed the suit against the Jdrs. as the L.Rs. of Vishweshwar as Vishwesnwar had died much prior to the filing of the suit in 1969. The said suit was decreed against the Jdrs. In the appeal R.A6/72, the decree was modified in. respect of the amount and the decree was passed for Rs. 4510-10 only. It was ordered to be recovered out of the share of Vishweshwar, which had come in the hands of Jdrs....
S.T. Krishnappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR920; 1985(1)KarLJ142
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 11-5-1984 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub-Division, Madhugiri, (Respondent-2) in No. DVS. CR. 129/83-84 (Annexure-A). By the said order, the 2nd respondent has appointed respondents Nos. 4 to 12 as Dharmadarshis of the temple known as 'Shree Kariyamma Devaru' at Sorekunte, Sira Taluk. The 4th respondent is appointed as Convenor of the said Committee of Dharma. darshis. Though several contentions are raised in the Petition including the contention relating to the suitability of the respondents 4 to 12 to function as Dharmadarshis of the temple, Sri Hanumanthaiah, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has confined the Petition to only one contention viz., that the 2nd respondent is not competent to appoint Dharmadarshis to the Muzrai Institution in question; there-fore, it is not necessary to go into other contentions including...
Muddappa Vs. Panchaksharaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1230
Kudoor J.1. This Regular First Appeal is by the defendant in O. S. No. 2107/1980 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, directed against the decree dated 30-6-1982 decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiff as prayed for.2. The plaintiff-society called the Jayanagar Parents Association (hereinafter called the 'Society') is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (for short the 'Act'). The suit is filed by the society through its President S. M. Panchaksharaiah against the defendant for a declaration that the defendant cannot call a meeting of the general body of the Society as stated in the notice dated 8-4-1977 and any such action taken pursuant thereto is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from conducting a meeting of the general body, electing an Executive Committee, collecting any funds in any manner on behalf of the society from the parents,students and the members of the society and spend...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka-i Vs. K.N. Nagabhushana Setty (H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Kar)150; ILR1985KAR329; [1985]156ITR484(KAR); [1985]156ITR484(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. These are references under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The common question referred is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that a deduction of 10% has to be allowed on the property owned by the co-owners even when the valuation is made on rental capitalisation method ?' 2. The facts lie in a narrow compass : The assessee is one of the co-owners of a property consisting of a shop building and godown with appurtenant land. For the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, the Wealth-tax Officer assessed the value of the property at Rs. 4,69,000 by rental capitalisation method by employing the multiple of 11.11. 3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the valuation made by the Wealth-tax Officer. But the Tribunal held that a multiple of 10 would be sufficient for determining the fair market value of the property. It also held that the assessee is entitled to deduction at ...
Shivagnanam Vs. Ramalal Manickchand JaIn and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant122; 1985(1)KarLJ151
ORDER1. This is a Judgment-debtor's revision against the order dt.30-11-78, passed by the Addl. II Munsiff, Bangalore in Ex. Case No. 754/78.2. The decree-holder filed the execution to recover Rs.785/- still remaining in arrears regarding the decree obtained by him in O.S.536/73. He got attached profit sharing bonus payable to the first Judgment-debtor (Jdr.). The first Jdr. appeared and contended that the bonus cannot be attached and he prayed for the raising of the attachment. The lower-court overruled the objections of the Jdr. Hence the revision by the Jdr. No. 1.3. Learned counsel Basavaraj placed before me the ruling in Western India Cottons Limited v. N. Raghavan, 1976 Lab IC 271 (Ker) wherein it is held:'In considering whether bonus is wages for the purposes of exemption from attachment under the C.P.C., the definition of the word 16wage' in the Industrial Disputes Act or Payment of Wages Act, is of no assistance. The definitions in those acts are intended for the purposes of r...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. M.V. Chandrashekhar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant61; ILR1984KAR1003; 1985(1)KarLJ99
Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. This is a reference under S. 54(l) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (Act No. 34 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The reference relates to the stamp duty payable on the three lease deeds which have been impounded by the Sub-Registrar, Koppa, when they were presented for registration.2. The lease deeds were presented by one M. V. Chandrasekhar on 21-4-1980 as the lessor, representing his minor son, M. C. Indumouli. The documents in question are the lease deeds in respect of three portions of coffee estates known as 'Chandra Estate' belonging to the minor. All the lease deeds are similar in nature and are executed for the same purpose on stamp paper of Rs. 5/-.3. The Sub-Registrar, Koppa, impounded the documents and called upon the presenter to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 750/-; Rs. 750/- and Rs. 600/- on the three lease deeds respectively. Being aggrieved by the notice issued by the Sub-Registrar, the...
Shivagnanam Vs. Ramalal Manickchand Jain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR322
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a Judgment-debtor's revision against the order dated 30-11-78, passed by the Add l. II Munsiff, Bangalore in Ex. Case No. 754/78. 2. The decree-holder filed the execution to recover Rs.785/-still remaining in arrears regarding the decree obtained by him in O.S 536/73. He got attached profit sharing bonus payable to the first Judgment-debtor (Jdr.) The first Jdr. appeared and contended that the bonus cannot be attached and he prayed for the raising of the attachment. The lower Court over-ruled the objections of the Jdr. Hence the revision by the Jdr. No. 1.3. Learned Counsel Basavaraj placed before me the ruling in Western India Cottons Limited -v.- S. Raghavan, 1976 L.I.C.276 wherein it is held:'In considering whether bonus is wages for the purposes of exemption from attachment under the C.P.C. the definition of the word 'wage' in the Industrial Disputes Act or Payment of Wages Act, is of no assistance. The definitions in those acts are intended for the purp...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka (Central) Vs. Khoday Eswarsa and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)46CTR(Kar)96; ILR1985KAR1312; [1985]152ITR423(KAR); [1985]152ITR423(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The following question under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, has been referred: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, interest payment of Rs. 11,365 to Smt. K. L. Gangamma, who was one of the partners of the firm on the date of payment of interest, can be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm. Originally it was constituted by an instrument dated November 21, 1969. Clause 10 of that instrument provides that in the event of death of a partner, the firm shall not be dissolved but shall be carried on by the remaining partners with the legal representatives of the deceased partner on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon in that behalf by mutual consent. 3. On July 30, 1973, Sri. K. L. Lakshmansa, one of the partners, died and a new partnership deed was executed on February 17, 1974, taking Smt. Gangamma, widow of Sri. K. Lakshmansa, as a partner with effect from July 31, 1973. She was...
Syndicate Bank, Bangalore Vs. Mahadevappa Basappa Kuppalur and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1984
Reported in: 1985(1)KarLJ48
ORDER1. This is a revision by the decreeholder against the order dt. 16-6-1980 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Ranebennur, in Execution No. 8 of 1980 dismissing the same with liberty to the decree-holder to file the execution case in the Court of the Munsiff at Hirekerur.2. The brief facts are as below : -The decree-holder-Syndicate Bank filed a suit - O. S. No. 225 of 1976 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Ranebermur, against the, judgment-debtors for recovering Rs. 3,529-85 together with future interest. The suit was decreed on 20th Dec. 1977. It was ordered that the defendants should pay to the decree holder-Bank the said amount in three instalments of Rs. 1,000/- each. None of the instalments was paid by the defendants. Hence on 19-1-1980 the decree-holder levied the execution in Execution No. 8 of 1980 in the Court of the Munsiff, Ranebennur, for recovering Rs. 6,579-60 as calculated up to 11-1-1980. The prayer was for attachment of the salary of the judgment-debtors.3. The M...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »