Karnataka Court January 1985 Judgments
Neelavva Vs. Kareppa Bapu Bandigani and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant224
ORDER1. This is a decree-holder's revision against the order dt. 26-8-80 passed by the Munsiff, Jamkhandi in Ex. Case No. 9/80 allowing I.A.2 and rejecting I.A.3. 2. The Decree-holder is the wife of JDr. No.1, JDr. No. 2 is the brother of JDr. No. 1. The JDr. filed a suit against her husband for maintenance. Lower Court awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. She filed an appeal. In that appeal the maintenance was raised to Rs. 40/- per month. JDr.No.1 also filed an appeal against the award of maintenance of Rs. 30/-. It was dismissed. 3. It is undisputed that the present house item No. 3 and some other properties were charged in the decree itself with maintenance of the JDr. She sued out execution case No.9/80, claiming arrears of maintenance from JDr.No. 1. She sought the recovery of the said amount by sale of the right, title and interest of JDr.No. 1 in suit item No. 3 house. Notice under O.21, R. 66 proposing to sell 1/3rd share in the house was published. Thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Kempegowda Vs. Lucinda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant231; ILR1985KAR1645; 1985(2)KarLJ61
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These appeals are directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 21, 1974 made in O. S. No. 130 of 1968 on the file of the Civil Judge, Mandya.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these:P. P. Samuel was a businessman at Mandya. He had one son (defendant-2) and two daughters (plaintiff and defendant-3). The plaintiff was devoted to the religious life and so she joined Convent. In 1950 she became a Nun under the name 'Sister Lucinda'. In. 1961, Samuel died leaving behind his wife (defendant-1) and children with certain properties. In 1968, Sister Lucinda instituted the suit for partition claiming 2/9th share in her-father's estate more particularly described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. It was inter alia averred in the plaint that after the demise of P. P. Samuel, the suit properties were in the joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. Defendant-2 without the plaintiff's consent or knowledge created some sort of interest in the suit...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.R.T.C. vs. R.T.O.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4139; 1985(1)KarLJ199
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of preliminary hearing, Learned High Court Government Pleader was directed to take notice for respondent No. 1. Accordingly, Sri B, N. Venugopal, Learned Government Pleader has put in appearance for the Regional Transport Authority, Mangnlore.2. There is an application filed by Sri M. Sathish Punja for being impleaded as additional respondent in the petition on the ground that he has been granted temporary permit on the route in question. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has no objection to allow the application. As the applicant is going to be affected on consideration of the prayer made by the petitioner, he is entitled to come on record. Accordingly, T A. No. 1 is allowed. The applicant is permitted to come on record as respondent No. 2. Cause title be amended.3. The first respondent, by the resolution dated 20th October, 1984 passed in Subject No. 122/84-85, produced as Annexure-B, has made a determination under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehic...
Tag this Judgment!Aspinwal and Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR688
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners, have questioned the validity of the notifications issued by the StateGovernment under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act ('the Act' for short) fixing minimum wages for various employments specified in Part-II of the Schedule to the Act. The first group of these Petitions are by the employers and the second group are by Trade Unions on behalf of workmen in various industries. Both are aggrieved by the impugnednotifications, but for different reasons.2. The facts of the case, in brief, and to the extent necessary for the consideration of general points arising for consideration in these Petitions are as follows : Minimum wages had been fixed for various categories of employees in different schedule employments under the Act by earlier notifications issued in or about the year 3978-79 under Section 3 of the Act. In the year 1981, the StateGovernment proposed to revise the rates of minimum wages by the mode specified in Section...
Tag this Judgment!Alembic Glass Industries Limited Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1985
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC281; 1987(10)LC679(Karnataka); 1986(24)ELT23(Kar)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. M/s Alembic Glass Industries Ltd., Baroda, a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, which is the petitioner before us, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of 'glass and glassware' at its two factories, one situated at Baroda and the other situated at Whitefield on the outskirts of the City of Bangalore. We are concerned in this case with the Whitefield factory. 2. 'Glass and Glassware' manufactured by the petitioner are dutiable to excise duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944) ('the Act'). In conformity with the Act and the Rules made under the Act, the petitioner filed four price-lists before the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bangalore, for the period commencing from 1-10-1975 (Exhibit-A1), inter alia, claiming that 'cartons' or 'packing materials' supplied by its buyers and their cost thereto was not includible in the assessable value of excisable goods manufactured and supplied to its wholesale...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Samiullah Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC121(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice No. SMR.100/75-76 dated 12th March, 1976 (exhibit A), issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore ('Commissioner'), under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), proposing to revise an order dated 5th January, 1976, of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore Division, Bangalore ('DC'), for the various reasons stated therein.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice principally on two grounds : (i) that section 22-A of the Act does not confer power of revision on the Commissioner to interfere with an appellate order made by the appellate authority under section 20 of the Act and (ii) that if the construction placed by him on section 22-A of the Act did not find favour with the court, then that provision was violative of article 14 of the Constitution. On these grounds a Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Stoneware Pipes and Potteries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR89
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of preliminary hearing Sri Shivshankar Bhat, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government was directed to take notice for respondent No. 1 and Sri Udayashankar, learned Government Pleader was also directed to take notice for respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, they have put in appearance. As the petition requires to the disposed of expeditiously, it is taken up for final disposal itself.2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 26th March, 1983, bearing No. 40(b) AML 82 and 40(a) AML 82, passed by the third respondent, produced as Annexure-G and also the order dated 28th March, 1984, bearing No. 179/84-1/431/83/MIV, passed by respondent No. 1, produced as Annexure-O. The petitioner has also sought for issue of a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to renew the mining lease No. 235, dated 24-2-53, first renewed till 24-2-1983 under Mining Lease No. 1099. There is also...
Tag this Judgment!K. Thammaiah Vs. Papanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1885; 1985(2)KarLJ120
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal of defendants is directed against the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the Civil Judge at Mandya in O.S.No. 49/1971 on his file. The respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff and the appellants were the defendants. In the course of this order, we will refer to the parties by the rank assigned to them in the Trial Court.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows : The plaintiff brought the suit for specific performance of the obligations of the defendants in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Exhibit-P1, the suit document and agreement to sell, dated July 8,1971, certain agricultural land bearing S.No.145 / l (old No.898) in Mandya (Kasba). The extent of the land agreed to be sold under Exhibit-P1 was 1 acre and 22 1/2 guntas for a consideration of Rs.27,390/-and a sum of Rs 11,000/- was paid on the date of theagreement and the balance was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the execution and registra...
Tag this Judgment!Bheemanda Devaiah Vs. Kanjithanda Karumbaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3073
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. Market value of land in a suit falling in the class of land suits covered by sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act'), determined by the Court of Civil Judge, Madikeri (for short 'the Trial Court'), applying the provision in clause (d) thereof, is questioned before me.2. Land in item-1 of the plaint schedule to the suit in the Trial Court, is 3 acres in extent and forms a specified portion of a total extent of 3 acres 89 cents comprised in Survey No. 33/2 respecting which annual revenue payable to Government is Rs 33-72. The Trial Court determined the market value of that land applying clause (d) of sub-section (2), as stated earlier.3. It was urged by Shri S. G. Bhagavan, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the Trial Court should have applied clause (b) of sub section (2) of Section 7 of the Act for determining the market value of the said land, instead of applying clause (b) thereof.4. Fe...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Samiullah Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR481; [1986]61STC107(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of Srinivasa Iyengar and Rama Jois, JJ., has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of the Full Bench : '(1) Whether section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, confers power on the Commissioner to interfere with an order made by an appellate authority under section 20 of the Act (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether section 22-A of the Act is void as offending article 14 of the Constitution ?' In order to appreciate the questions referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case that are not in dispute in the first instance. 2. The petitioner who is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tobacco products is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act'), on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiptur ('CTO'). 3. For the assessment year 1972-73 the petitioner filed his return before the CT...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »