Karnataka Court November 1985 Judgments

Kishorchand Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR964

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a revision by the receiver appointed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in Execution Case No. 8.2/1977. It is directed against the legality and correctness of the order dated 13-9-1985 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mangalore, in the said execution petition. Before stating the peculiar facts and circumstances leading to the present revision petition, it would be useful to set-out the order itself in toto :'13-9-85;Petitioner : Shri P. V. Shetty present.I.A. No. IVSection 151 C.P.C.A.L.S. Present. Shri P.V.S. PresentHeard. As submitted by them. F.S. RecordedReceiver discharged. Deliver the properties in favour of the Jdr. by 30-9-85'.The receiver who is none other than the son of the judgment debtor in the above mentioned execution petition is aggrieved by that portion of the above order by which properties are to be delivered to the judgment-debtor. He has no quarrel or no grievance at all in respect of the other parts of the order. O...

Ankappa Vs. Tahsildar and Returning Officer

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. A Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Publication dated 25th October, 1985 bearing No Elec. C.R. 10/85-86 issued by the first respondent as per Annexure-D proposing to hold poll to elect three Directors, to the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent society from 'B' Class members on the 10th of November, 1985 from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the first respondent to issue a fresh calendar of events to hold election to the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent-society from 'B' Class members constituency in accordance with Rule 14 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').2. The petitioner is one of the contesting candidates from 'B' Class members constituency. The first respondent is appointed as Returning Officer for the purpose of holding election to the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent-society. The fir...

B.W.S.S.B. Vs. Ramakrishna Aithal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR488

Rama jois, J.1. These writ appeals are filed by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') against the common Judgment of the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 34141 of 1981 and connected Writ Petitions.2. In the Writ Petitions, the petitioners, who are non-domestic consumers of water supplied by the Board in the City of Bangalore, questioned the validity of Regulation 7-A introduced into the Bangalore Water Supply Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') by an amendment made on 1st November, 1981. By the said amendment, every non-domestic consumer was required to make a deposit of an amount equal to six times the average monthly charges with the Board. The contention of the petitioners was that Regulation 7-A was ultra vires the power conferred on the Board under the provisions of the Act. The Learned Judge accepted the contention of the petitioners and declared the regulation invalid.3. Learned Counsel for th...

Thimmo Gowda Vs. Kalegowda

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR960

1. This Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff is directed against the Order dated 16-7-1984 of the Munsiff, Krishnarajapet, made in I.A. No. II, in O.S. No. 40/83. 2. The Original Suit filed by the plaintiff was one for specific performance of the contract, by the defendant. By I. A. II he sought an amendment of the plaint to read that the plaintiff at all times was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the agreement and he continued to be willing to do so even on the dace of the presentation of the plaint In other words, the original plaint did not contain these averments. The application came to be rejected on the ground that such an amendment was impermissible having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is tiled under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Mr. C.R.V. Swamy, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has 'drawn my attention to the ruling of the absence of specific pleadi...

Narayana Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the meeting notice dated 31st October, 1985 issued by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of holding election to the office of President and Vice-President of the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent-Bank. The petitioner is one of the elected directors of the 3rd respondent = Bank. So also the 4th respondent.2. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent has been the member of the Bangalore North Taluk Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Bangalore for the last several years. He also became the member of the 3rd respondent-Bank on 30th March, 1984 and thereafter has been elected to the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent-Bank. Of course, in the Writ Petition, as to when the 4th respondent became the member of the Bangalore North Taluk Primary co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and the 3rd respondent ...

Special Land Acquisition Officer, K.H.F. Project, Dandeli Vs. Ambaji N ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1987Kant28

ORDER1. There is no merit in this revision petition filed by the State. What was contended before the learned Civil Judge was that the application seeking an order of reference to the Civil Court was made 90 days after the date of the award. That contention was rejected on the sole ground that it was not a case of the interested person seeking a reference directly through the Court but, a case of concerned Land Acquisition Officer not making a reference despite an application made to him for reference by the interested person. Therefore, 90 days must naturally commence from the 90th day after the presentation of the application at which point the Land Acquisition Officer had made no reference. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the learned Civil Judge is in conformity with the provisions contained in C1. (b) of sub-see. (3) Of S. 18 of the Act.2. Petition dismissed.3. Revision dismissed....

Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah by Lrs.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1987]164ITR41(KAR); [1987]164ITR41(Karn)

ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. The common question referred under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profit on sale of building sites in Survey Nos. 70/1/A and 73/A/1 were not profits derived from an adventure in the nature of trade and, therefore, not taxable as business profits for the assessment year ?' 2. ITRC No. 63/76 pertains to the asst. yr. 1964-65 and ITRC 64/76 relates to the asst. yr. 1965-66. 3. The ITAT has disposed of the matter by a common order dt. 26-6-1971, and the facts that we could gather from the statement of the case are thus : Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah - the assessee - obtained a permanent lease in respect of two adjacent lands, Sy. No. 70/1/A measuring 11 acres .02 guntas and Sy. No. 73/A/1 measuring 19 acres .05, guntas, Sy. No. 70/1/A was taken on lease on 1-4-1947 and Sy. No. 73/A/1 was taken on lease on 1-4-1947 and Sy. No. 73/A/1 was ...

Ramegowda Vs. Gowramma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR992

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is justified in submitting that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that there is a sub-letting of the premises is not valid in law. I have gone through the finding on Point No. 3 recorded by the Learned Trial Judge. Learned Trial Judge has nowhere stated that the petitioner has let out or allowed a specific portion of the premises exclusively to be occupied by another person. In other words, there is no specific finding that the petitioner has parted with possession of any portion of the premises to another person. Merely because a relative or a friend resides with the tenant for a certain period continuously or otherwise does not amount to subletting as long as there is no-exclusive possession of the premises or a portion of the premises, by such person. Hence, the finding that there is sub-letting of the premises cannot be sustained. However, this conclusion of mine is not of any help to the petitioner in obtaining the rel...

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah

Court: Karnataka

K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J. 1. The common question referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profits on sale of building sites in Survey Nos. 70/1/A and 73/A/1 were not profits derived from an adventure in the nature of trade and, therefore, not taxable as business profits for the assessment year ?' 2. I.T.R.C. No. 63 of 1976 pertains to the assessment year 1964-65 and I.T.R.C. No. 64 of 1976 relates to the assessment year 1965-66. 3. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') has disposed of the matter by a common order dated June 26, 1971, and the facts that we could gather from the statement of the case are these : Chikkaveerayya Lingaiah, the assessee, obtained a permanent lease in respect of two adjacent lands, Survey No. 70/1/A measuring 11 acres 02 quotas and Survey No. 73/A/1 measuring 19 acres 05 quotas. Survey No. 70/1/A was ta...

Raja Industrial Works, Sringeri Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Exc ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1986(9)ECC212; 1986(24)ELT9(Kar); [1987]166ITR548(KAR); [1987]166ITR548(Karn)

ORDER1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of trailers, under the name and style of M/s Raja Industrial Works, Sringeri. The clearance of these trailers manufactured by the petitioner was exempted from levy of Excise duty under Notification No. 31/66 dated 1-3-1966. It was later found, on investigation, that the petitioner was not entitled to claim exemption under the said notification and a show-cause notice was issued as per Exhibit-A by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise, Davangere, proposing to levy duty on the clearances made during the period 1-11-1969 to 14-5-1976. The show-cause notice was issued on the strength of the material collected by the department that the declaration filed by the petitioner earlier to avail of the exemption under the said notification, was false. 2. Under Notification No. 31/66 exemption is granted to trailers falling under Item 34 of First Schedule of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, from the whole of the duty provided such trailers are manufacture...