Karnataka Court October 1985 Judgments

Chandrakantha R. Ghodke Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, V Circle, Hubli an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR132; [1986]63STC440(Kar)

S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. This writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16th July, 1985. Since I found the constitution of the partnership firm of M/s. Ghodke and Brothers, Hubli as stated in the petition was different from what was stated in paragraph 2 of the statement of objections filed by the Government, I therefore, directed the Government Pleader to file a clarificatory statement. 2. The two partners of the partnership firm M/s. Ghodke and Brothers, during the relevant period were Gangappa son of Mallappa Ghodke and Ramachandra son of Fakirappa Ghodke, who died on 6th September, 1974, and 16th February, 1974, respectively. Though it is asserted in the petition that those two partners constituted the partnership firm, according to the statement of objections, it consisted of three partners, viz., Fakirappa Devendrappa Ghodke, Basappa Devendrappa Ghodke and Gangappa Mallappa Ghodke. 3. By order dated 14th August, 1985, I recalled the order dictated earlier on 16th July, 19...

R. Venkatesham Chetty Vs. Secretary Ksta

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR77

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 2-8-1985 passed by the 1st respondent in No. STA 6/ CS 83/85-86 (Annexure-E). He has also prayed for quashing the endorsement of countersignature bearing No. STA 6 CS 83/85-86 dated 2-7-1985 produced as Annexure-F.2. The facts necessary to decide the contentions raised by both the sides, are as follows :2.1) The petitioner is operating a stage carriage service on the route between Palamaner and K.G.F. via Nangili, Mulabagal, Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has published a Draft Scheme No. 8/81 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette Extraordinary, dated 18-4-1981 pertaining to the route Thirupathi to Bangalore via Chittoor, Palamaner, Nangali, Mulbagal, Kolar.2.2) There is also an agreement entered into between the State of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh under Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is ...

Sri Jayadeva Institute of Commerce Vs. Commissioner of Public Instruct ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR398

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These Petitions are disposed of by this common order as the questions of law and facts raised in these Petitions are common. The petitioners are all proprietary managements of Commerce Institutes in the State of Karnataka. They come from different parts of the State, the majority are probably from the City of Bangalore. They are all what are called Commerce Institutes essentially offering tuition and training in typewriting and shorthand both in English as well as in Kannada. There may be some among the petitioners who impart education in other allied subjects like Accountancy and Secretarial Practice with which this Court need not be concerned in these Writ Petitions. But what is useful to State before summarising the averments of the petitioners and the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-State and others is that there are said to be about 1100 and odd Commerce Institutes in the State of Karantaka of which 9 only are run by the State. The rest of ...

Silver Audio Systems Vs. Associated Electronic and Electrical Industri ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR217

ORDERKudoor, J.1. The order that gave rise to this Criminal Petition is the order dated 19-1-1984 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in P.C.R. No. 115 of 1983 on an application I. A-I filed by the petitioner under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the seized goods worth about Rs. 4,88,965/- by the Koramangala Police on 18-11-1983 during the course of the investigation of the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent.2. I shall refer to the parties in the course of this order as they stood in relation to the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent.3. To proceed further, it is relevant to refer to a few facts leading up to the filing of this petition.4. The complainant Associated Electronic & Electrical Industries (Bangalore) Private Limited represented by its General Manager Sri G. Ramesh has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Silver Audio System Private Limited...

Narayana Bhatta Vs. R.T.O.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has sought for quashing the endorsement dated 2-9-1985 bearing No. RTO. RGN. NR PR. 146/ 85-86 issued by the respondent in so far it imposes a condition that the vehicle bearing Chasis No. ALEM 175174 (the correct No. stated to be ALEH 175142) with Engine No. ALE 437548 (the correct No. stated to be ALEH 37546) shall be used only under an All India Permit and that in case the vehicle proposed to be used under any kind of permit, the Petitioner should comply with Rule 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (for short, the 'Rules').2. The Petitioner has applied for approval of the design of the vehicle for body-building on the Chasis bearing No, ALEH 175142 before the respondent under Rule 231 of the Rules. The respondent-registering authority, has issued the impugned Endorsement which reads thus :--'Sub : Construction of body as 'Tourist- Vehicle' Ashok Leyland Cheetah having W...

Ningappa Shivappa Gowri and ors. Vs. Kalavathi and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR211

ORDER1. This Criminal Petition one under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arose out of a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent Smt. Kalavathi against the petitioner (the accused) for offences punishable under Ss. 494 and 109, I.P.C. read with S. 34, I.P.C. 2. The matter arises in this way. On a complaint filed by the complainant in the Court of the JMFC., Saundatti, in Cr. Case No. 12/1982, the Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and of four witnesses produced by her passed an order D/- 9-11-1982 directing issue of process against all the accused. The accused carried the matter to the Court of Session at Belgaum in Criminal Revision No. 10/1983 which came to be heard and dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, as per his order D/- 30th July, 1983. Being aggrieved by this order the accused have filed this petition challenging the validity and legality of the order passed by the Courts below. 3. Sri S. M. Kallur, learned Advo...

Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K. Bhoomiamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Kar)178; [1986]158ITR615(KAR); [1986]158ITR615(Karn); [1986]24TAXMAN101(Kar)

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference made under section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (Central Act 18 of 1958) (the Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (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 Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the gift-tax payable, which was agreed to be paid by the donee, has to be deducted, as a consideration within the meaning of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ?' In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts that are not in dispute. 2. Under a deed of settlement dated March 31, 1973 (annexure-A), the assessee settled her half share in a valuable immovable property, a hotel complex known as 'Tourist Hotel' bearing Door Nos. 21, 21/1, 21/2 and 21/3, situated on Race Course Road, Bangalore-9, in favour of one Venkatesha Madi ...

M.A. Sreenivasan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Kar)115; [1986]162ITR106(KAR); [1986]162ITR106(Karn); [1986]24TAXMAN543(Kar)

K.S. Puttaswamy, J. 1. In conformity with the directions of this court in C.P. Nos. 32 to 35 of 1979, 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 Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption in respect of the value of the building in question under section 5(1)(ivb) of the Wealth-tax Act ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts that are not in dispute and as found by the Tribunal also. 3. Some time in 1953-54, the assessee purchased an extent of 10 acres 31 guntas of land situated at Rajmahal Village, Bangalore North Taluk, now part of a posh residential locality called Rajmahalvilas extension of the City of Bangalore, from the Maharajah of Mysore, who was its owner. Even since he purchased the l...

Basappa Lachamappa Mongyal Vs. Hanumantha Rao Roaoji Rao

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR867

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dated 28-6-1982, 20-6-1983 and 26-2-1985 passed by respondents 2, 3 and 4 produced as Annexures A, B and C respectively.2. The land in question is an agricultural land bearing Survey No. 69/2A measuring 7 acres 8 guntas situated at Hirur village, Muddebihal Taluk. There was a suit for partition between the predecessors-in-interest of the first respondent and the vendor of the 7th defendant in the suit by name Dhulappa son of Sanna Dhulappa. The suit was decreed awarding half share to the plaintiff and the defendant on 31-1-1962. There was a Regular First Appeal 82 of 1982 filed before the District Judge, Bijapur which was also dismissed on 7-8-1967. Against the decree passed by the District Judge, there was a Regular Second Appeal No. 987 of 1967 filed before this Court and the same was dismissed on 22nd February, 1972, Thus, a preliminary decree for ...

Ramanna Vs. Abdulla

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR953

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. preferred by the landlord against the order of the District Judge. Mysore, dated 12-1-1982 made in HR. CRP. No. 47/1980. That revision was preferred by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant who suffered an order of eviction by the Munsiff, Mysore, made in HRC. No. 435/1976. That eviction Petition was presented by the landlord seeking possession of the residential portion of the schedule premises leased to the tenant on the sole ground that the same was required for his bone fide use and occupation, as he had no other house of his own and that he was not in a position to continue to live with his sister.2. The tenant resisted the eviction Petition on the ground that the requirement made out by the landlord was not genuine ; not reasonable nor bona fids ; that the landlord was quietly residing with his sister and there was no cause for him to change his residence and in any event greater hardship...