Karnataka Court October 1985 Judgments

Venkatachalaiah Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR796

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In these two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 28-8-1985 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Appeal No. 925/82.2. The Tribunal by the aforesaid order, has set aside the Resolution dated 27/28-7-1982 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'KSTA') in Subject No. 252/81 rejecting the application filed by the 3rd respondent for grant of Stage carriage permit on the route Chikkanayakanahally to Tumkur via Salakatte, Kandikere, Thimmenahalli, Badkegudlu, Bellara, Bukkapatna, Sira, Madalur State Border, Hullekere, Agali, State Border, Rantwala, Hosakere, Madhugiri, Koratagere and Agrahara and back.3. The Tribunal has held that the appeal filed by the petitioners on 20th November 1982 is in time as the period of limitation commenced on 6-11-1982 the date on which the 3rd respondent...

Nagaraj Vs. Mohan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR236

ORDERKudoor, J.1. This Revision is preferred against the order dated 7-6-1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Cr. R.P. No. 13/85.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision may, briefly, be stated as under :The petitioner H.P. Nagaraj (who will be hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. before the II Additional Munsiff & J.M.F.C. (II Court), Shimoga against the respondents (who will be hereinafter referred to as the accused) for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 465 I.P.C. The material allegations levelled against the accused in the complaint were that the 1st accused Mohan took forcible possession of the complainant's Matador van bearing Registration No. CNS 4933, having got up false documents by obtaining signatures of the complainant on blank papers and also on a stamp paper by force with the help of Parameswarappa the P.S.I. of Old Town Police Station, Bhadravathi and subsequently obtained a power of at...

Raghu Yane Raghavendra Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR4048; 1986(1)KarLJ59

Patil, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated November 22, 1983, passed by the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1983, on his file.2. The appellant Raghu yane Raghavendra (A-l) and his elder brother Murali (A-2) were jointly tried on the charge of the Commission of offence of murder punishable under Sections 302 R/W 34 IPC for having intentionally caused the death of one Ramesh. The appellant was also further separately charged with the commission of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. Murali was held to be not guilty of the charge of the offence levelled against him. The appellant was also held to be not guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 or Section 302 R/W Section 34 IPC. He was. however, found to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and has been convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of five years thereon, being aggrieved of which he ...

State of Karnataka Vs. the West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1986Kant103; ILR1985KAR3857; 1985(2)KarLJ498

M.S. Patil, J.1. This appeal by the defendant and cross-objection by plaintiff arise out of the judgment and decree in 0. S. No. 5 of 1972, dated June 30, 1975, passed by the Civil Judge, North Kanara, at Karwar.2. The State of Karnataka is the defendant. The West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., Dandeli (the 'Company'), a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act is the plaintiff.3. While the defendant has filed the appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree directing to refund Rs. 2,34,531/- being excess amount recovered from plaintiff with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation, plaintiff has filed cross-objection against that part of the decree refusing to award interest from the date of suit to the date of decree and also claiming future rate A interest at higher rate than that awarded by the trial Court. .4. The only controversy between the parties is as to the fate at which the Company has to pay for the bamboos cut before Jan...

Krupasheela Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules, 1984 as well as Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Dental Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Those Rules of 1983-84 referred to academic year 1984-85 and 1983-84 respectively for M.B.B.S. Course and Dental Surgery Course. Rule 4(1) of the Rules deals with the distribution of seats i.e., where the seats should be distributed after reservation is given effect to. The reservation is to be made in accordance with another rule in the same Rules in regard to Backward Classes, Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules specifically provides for reservation of a special category of persons such as :(a) Students nominated by the Government of India.(b) Children of Defence and Ex-Defense Personnel.(c) Children o...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. N. Krishnan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Kar)75; [1986]162ITR309(KAR); [1986]162ITR309(Karn)

Hakeem, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue, has referred for the opinion of this court the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 35 lakhs representing the advance tax paid by the company and shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet should not be deducted from the excess provision for taxation in valuing the shares of M/s. International Instruments (P) Ltd. ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. 3. The assessee as an individual held equity shares in M/s. International Instruments Pvt. Ltd. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee declared in his return under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), before the Wealth-tax Officer the value of the equity shares held by him at Rs. 220.24 per share. On January 22, 1...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-i, Bangalore Vs. M.P. Davis

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Kar)78; [1986]162ITR251(KAR); [1986]162ITR251(Karn); [1986]27TAXMAN59(Kar)

Puttaswamy, J.1. In these references made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessment under section 147 was not valid in law ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal in the first instance. 3. For the assessment years 1967-68 and 1970-71 relevant to the accounting years ending on March 31, 1967, and March 31, 1970, respectively, the assessee did not file his returns on or before the time stipulated by section 139(1) of the Act. In that view, the Income-tax Officer, Assessment-7 Circle-II, Bangalore, issued notices under section 139(2) of the Act calling upon the asse...

Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1988]174ITR206(KAR); [1988]174ITR206(Karn)

Puttaswamy, J. 1. For default of appearance of the assessee and his learned counsel, this court, on December 4, 1984, disposed of this reference declining to answer the question. On an application made by the assessee, this Court later recalled the said order, restored the reference to its original file and has heard the same on merits and that is how this order has come to be made by us. 2. In this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of 2/7ths of Rs. 51,29,454 as held by the Tribunal or 40% of the same, as claimed by the assessee ?' 3. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice...

Syed Amjad Pasha Qadi Vs. Rahimunnisa Begum

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR4004

ORDERKulkarni, J.1.This is a revision by defendant-4 against the order dated 18-2-1981 passed by the Munsiff, Gulbarga, in F.D.P. No. 14 of 1980 (O.S. No. 110/69) appointing a Commissioner under Order 26 Rules 13 and 14 C.P.C.2. One Mohd. Ibrahim who died on 6-3 1961 had left behind him his daughterRahimunnisa the plaintiff, and two sons Abdul Gafoor defendant-1 and Mohd. Abdul Kareem defendant-2. He left behind him the suit properties.3. We are concerned at this stage only with item No. 1 of the property. The decree passed in relation to item No. 1 is that the plaintiff has got 1/5th share, defendant-2 has got 2/5th share and defendant-4 has got 2/5th share. Defendant- I sold the suit item No. 1 property to defendant-3 on 204-1967. In turn defendant 3 sold item No. 1 property to defendant-4 under a sale deed dated 9-8-1968. Defendant-3 had agreed to sell this very property to defendant-4 under an agreement dated 26-1-1967. This decree was ultimately confirmed by this Court in R.S.A. N...

M. Abdul Sattar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1987]163ITR642(KAR); [1987]163ITR642(Karn)

Puttaswamy, J. 1. In this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('Tribunal'), at the instance of the assessee has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the exemption claimed under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1973-74 is permissible in law ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts that are not in dispute in the first instance. 3. On June 21, 1971, the assessee purchased a house situated on Park Road, Bangalore City, for his residence and was using the same as his residence from about that date. Some time in May, 1972, he sold 2/3rds portion of the said house for a sum of Rs. 30,000 and some time in February, 1973, he purchased another house at Miller Road, Bangalore City. 4. In his return filed for the assessm...