Karnataka Court January 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1985
Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Kar)244; [1985]155ITR321(KAR); [1985]155ITR321(Karn); [1985]23TAXMAN400(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These four references are under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (Shortly 'the Act'). The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in a lengthy statement of the case has referred six questions. 2. To state briefly, the facts and the questions are these : Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (BEML) is the assessee herein and the assessment year is 1965-66. It is a company wholly owned by the Government of India. It was incorporated on May 11, 1964. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) is another company, also owned by the Government of India. This HAL among others was engaged in the manufacture and sale of rail coaches. It had a separate Rail Coach Division. 3. On October 27, 1962, the President of India entered into a collaboration agreement with Le Tourneau Westinghouse Company, USA (WABCO), for manufacture of Heavy Earth Moving Equipment. Initially that agreement was transferred to HAL as it had enough facilities to undertake the preliminary work of the project. It was agreed that HAL sh...
Tag this Judgment!D. Ananthakrishna Bhat Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Kant5
ORDER1. The case of the petitioner is as under:S. No. 157/2 measuring 2 acres 25 cents classified as punja land of Derebail village of Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District is part of the properties owned by the Hindu undivided family of which the petitioner is the yajaman. A temple by name 'Sri Durga Parameshwari temple' is situated in the said land. It is situated within the Mangalore City Agglomeration. Under the impression that punja lands, though form part of the agricultural lands, are 'urban lands' if situated within the limits of City Agglomeration, the petitioner gave a declaration under subsection (1) of Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the 'Act'), before the 1st respondent who was the competent authority for the said purpose. In fact declaration was given under the misconception that it was a vacant land under the Act. A portion of the land is used for the purpose of the temple and the rest is being used only for the purpose of a...
Tag this Judgment!Manjulatha Vs. Dr. M.L. Narasimham
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1413; 1985(1)KarLJ380
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. This is a petition filed by the wife for transferring M. C. No. 259 of 1981, pending in the court of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, to be tried along with O. P. No. 140 of 1983, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (A.P.)2. The undisputed facts are the first petitioner and the respondent were married at Hyderabad on 8-3-1981. At the time of marriage, the respondent was working as a doctor in Iran. After his return to India, the respondent is employed as a Senior House Surgeon in Vishakapatnam, A.P. Therespondent's father M. Suryanarayana resides at Bangalore.The married life between the first petitioner and the respondent was short lived. Respondent filed M. C. No. 359 of 1981, before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, for declaration of nullity of the marriage between him and the firstpetitioner. M.C. No. 259 of 1981 filed by the respondent-husband was instituted earlier. The first petitioner in her affidavit has stated that she has no ...
Tag this Judgment!N.P. Siddaiah Vs. K. Gopal and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant175; ILR1986KAR166; 1985(1)KarLJ254
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the respondent had filed, a suit against him for recovery of money in O.S.No. 94/1977 and that in pursuance of the service of summons on him he appeared in Court and it was only on 13-10-1977 that he was supplied with the copy of the plaint. From 13-10-1977 it was adjourned to 15-11-1977 for filing the written statement. Again, it was adjourned to 15-12-1977 for written statement. As he did not appear on that day, he was placed ex parte. It was adjourned to 9-1-1978 for plaintiff's evidence. On 9-1-1978 it was adjourned to 17-1-1978, at the instance of the plaintiff for ex parte evidence. Again, on 17-1-1978, it was adjourned to 25-1-1978 for plaintiff's evidence. On that day, the plaintiff lead the evidence and the trial Court decreed the suit on 15-1-1978.2. According to the petitioner, his father was ill and he had the problem regarding the delivery of daughter-in-law and...
Tag this Judgment!Amruthrao Vs. Viswanath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3272
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. Scope and ambit of Rule 59 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), arise for determination in this Revision Petition.2. The petitioners here are minor sons of respondent-2 here. Respondent-1 here obtained adecree against respon-dent-2 here on 26-5-1982 in O.S. No. 7/82, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Bidar, for recovery of certain money. In executing that money decree in Execution Petition Case No. 50/82, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Basava Kalyan, he got attached the land comprised in Survey No. 56 situated at Talbhog Village claiming that it belonged to respondent-2 here. The petitioners here, who raised an objection to the said attachment of the land under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Code, sought for release of the same. That objection, which was registered in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/82, in the said Munsiff's Court, was adjudicated upon by it, but disallowed by its order dated 18-11-1983. Admittedly, that order, t...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Sripad Shankar Kulkarni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1630
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This Decree holders' Revision is directed against the order dated 12-12-1978 passed by the Additional Munsiff. Jamkhandi, in Execution Case No. 39/1978 dismissing the same.2. The Judgment-Debtor had filed a suit in Special Civil Suit No. 13/62 against the Decree-holders in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli and obtained a decree. During the pendency of the suit Rs. 5743-75 on 17-4-1964 and Rs. 379-50 on 8-12-1967 had been deposited by the Decree-holders. The present Decree-holders approached the High Court of Bombay in First Appeal No. 93/1964 challenging the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli in Special Civil Suit No 13/62. The High Court of Bombay allowed the appeal on 6-8-1968 and the Judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, were set-aside. The present Decree-holders filed a restitution application under Section 144 C.P.C., in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, on 12-1-1973. The...
Tag this Judgment!L.S. Jayappa and anr. Vs. N.S. Shamegowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: 1985(1)KarLJ223
Patil, J.1. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22-8-1983 passed by the Additional J.M.F.C., Tarikere, in C.C. Nos. 666 and 667 of 1982, respectively, whereby the Magistrate has acquitted the accused of the charge of the offence punishable under S. 500, I.P.C. 2. The appellant L. S. Jayappa being a resident of Lakkavalli in Tarikere Taluk of Chikmagalur District is a licensed money lender. Accused N. S. Shamegowda and Jayashankar are father and son and residents of Kenchikoppa village. In the year 1978, Jayappa had advanced a sum of Rs. 2000/- as loan to Shamegowda. When he failed to repay the amount borrowed, Jayappa brought Small Cause Suit No. 61/81 against him and obtained a decree and filed execution petition No. 12/81 and got arrested Shamegowda. But, on his undertaking to pay the amount on the next day, he was released. Thereafter, on 10-8-82, at about 12 noon, when Jayappa was standing on the pail outside his house, ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Basavalingappa and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR773; 1985(1)KarLJ400; [1985]59STC1(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J. 1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases have been posted before us for disposal.2. As the petitioners in these cases have challenged one and the same provision, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 3. All the petitioners, except the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17117 of 1984 claim that they are engaged in the business of commission agents or 'dallals' before one or the other Agricultural Market Committee constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act of 1968 ('APMC Act') by obtaining licences from the concerned Committee. They claim that their aforesaid business activity only brings the buyer and seller together and they are not dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act No. 25 of 1957) ('the Act'). 4. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 17117 of 1984 which is a registered partnership firm of partners, is also a registered dealer under the Act on the file of ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Subramanya Reddy and Co. Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3419; [1985]59STC84(Kar)
Hakeem, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated July 14, 1981 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, passed in S.T.A. No. 1078 of 1979. 2. The assessee is a dealer in empty bottles and tins. For the assessment year 1977-78 the assessing authority has determined the total and taxable turnovers at Rs. 2,60,015.60 and Rs. 2,25,950.00 as against the declared total and taxable turnover of Rs. 2,21,567.82 and Rs. 2,09,552.22 respectively. The assessing authority also added 20 per cent. as gross profits on the purchases of bottles and tins made by the assessee. 3. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore City Division, confirmed the assessment and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Further appeal of the assessee before the Tribunal also failed. The Tribunal has upheld the assessment holding the assessee as a first dealer and not entitled to claim exemption from tax since he was not able to produce any evidence to show that the...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa Vs. Excise Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR186
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is a resident of K.R. Sagar has sought for quashing the C.L. 2 licence granted to the 4th respondent to vend liquor in the premises No. 310 of K.R. Sagar, granted by the second- respondent by his order dated 30th July 1984 in No. EXE. MDY. IML. 104 of 83-84 produced as Annexure-D. It is a public interest litigation.2. The case of the petitioner is that the premises in respect of which C. L. 2 Licence is granted to respondent No. 4 by the second-respondent is situated within 200 metres from the Temple, Harijan Colony and the School. Therefore it is liable to be quashed as the same is opposed to the provisions contained in Standing Circular No. 108 issued by the Excise Commissioner for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and specially for the purpose of issuing licences under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »