Karnataka Court March 1985 Judgments
Shivaputrappa Channappa Mungoli and anr. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3014; [1986]160ITR123(KAR); [1986]160ITR123(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy J.), this case was posted before us for disposal. 2. For the assessment year 1975-76 relevant to the previous year ending on March 31, 1975, the petitioners who are agriculturists did not file their return within the time permitted by section 18(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural I.T. Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1957) ('the Act'), before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dharwar (A.I.T.O.), for which reason that officer issued them a notice under section 18(2) of the Act, calling upon them to file their return, to which also they did not respond. In that view, the A.I.T.O. issued a proposition notice to the petitioners under section 19(4) of the Act, on December 5, 1977, fixing the date of hearing as December 14, 1977, which was however served on them only on December 30, 1977. But the A.I.T.O., without noticing the non-service of the said notice on the petitioners before the hearing date, completed a best judgm...
Tag this Judgment!C.J. Shekharappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2775; 1985(2)KarLJ111
ORDERKudoor, J.The material facts on which this Writ Petition, one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is founded are the following:1. The petitioner CJ. Shekharappa filed an application in Form-11 under Section 66 of the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') declaring the total extent of his holding, the number of members in his family, the nature of the land and other particulars, before the 2nd Respondent-Land Tribunal. The Tribunal took up the declaration presented by the petitioner in Case No. 416/74 75 and after conducting an enquiry, passed an order on 8-8-1977 as per Annexure-A declaring the holding of the petitioner was in excess by 6 acres and further directing the petitioner to surrender the said 6 acres of land on or before 20-8-1977 failing which the Tribunal would select any of the lands declared for the purpose of the surplus land. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner voluntarily gave anapplication stating that he would surrender 6 ...
Tag this Judgment!Sumitrabai Vs. Madhava Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1911
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by plaintiff against the decree and judgment dated March 21, 1975 made by the Civil Judge, Haveri, in O.S.No. 9 of 1973.2. Before we deal with the plaint averments it will be convenient to refer to the relationship between the parties to the suit.We start with Kashinath Naik. He had two wives - (i) Ganga Bai and (ii) Kamalabai. Gangabai died leaving behind her only daughter-Shakubai. Kamalabai had two daughters-(i) Sumitrabai - plaintiff, and (ii) Indirabai - defendant - 2. Sumitrabai has one son and two daughters. Indirabai has two sons and 4 daughters. Madhava rao, defendant-1, is the first son of Indirabai.Malhar Kulkarni is the husband of Sumitrabai and Neelakantharao is the husband of Indirabai.Kashinath Naik died leaving behind him the above relations and also lands measuring about 45 acres. After his death, plaintiff and her husband started living in the house of Kamalabai and managed the properties for about 30 years. In 19...
Tag this Judgment!Shivalingaiah Vs. Ananda Social and Educational Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1950; 1985(2)KarLJ206
Murlidher Rao, J.1. The, facts to be narrated in this appeal reveal the sorry state of affairs and the unfortunate events that have been created by the promoters of education who started institution with a laudable object in the name of a great personality of this Country.2. This appeal is by the defendants in O.S. No. 4130 of 1984, on the file of the 15th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The plaintiffs in this suit had, on earlier occasion, filed O. S. Nos. 3028 of 1984 and 3707 of 1984. Those suits are pending.In O.S. No. 3028 of 1984, an interim injunction was granted on 29-8-1984, which is the subject matter of another appeal. There is no interim order in O.S. No. 3707 of 1984. The facts which are necessary to appreciate the points in dispute are as follows:Defendants 1 to 9 are the appellants in this appeal and the respondents are plaintiffs: the defendants and plaintiffs in the suit along with others, formed a Society which was registered under the Societies Registrat...
Tag this Judgment!Sudha Vs. Sharadamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1483
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated March 27, 1984 made by the II Addl. Civil Judge, Belgaum, in O.S.No. 115 of 1981.2. Smt. Sudha, the appellant was plaintiff. She instituted the suit for specific performance of a contract for sale in regard to eastern half portion of Plot No.8 (CTS No. 3940) situate on Belgaum Club Road, requiring Respondents (defendants 1 and 2) to execute the sale deed in her favour by accepting the balance of sale consideration. Alternatively she prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- by way of damages in the event of the Court for any reason declining to grant the relief of specific performance.3. The contract sought to be enforced was founded by correspondence between the parties and the materialallegations in the plaint are :Plot No. 8 measuring 14 guntas was originally owned by Dr.P.M. Bhoj who died leaving behind his widow defendant-1 and two children, of them one is a daughter married to an affl...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Vs. Srinivasa Bhat Thammanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1946
ORDERHakeem, J.Hakeem, J.1.This is a landlord's Revision Petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C.2. The landlord sought for eviction of the tenants from the non-residential premises in question on the ground under Section 21(l)(h) of the Act. On an appreciation of the evidence the Trial Court allowed the landlord's claim and ordered eviction of the tenant. Being aggrieved by the said order ofeviction the Respondents herein, who are stated to be the tenant and subtenant respectively, challenged the same by filing separate Revision Petitions under Section 50 of the Act before the District Court, Dharwad. The Learned District Judge while concurring with the findings of the Trial Court on the question of bona fides and reasonableness of the landlord's requirement of the premises on the grounds under Section 21(l)(h) of the Act, dismissed the eviction Petition on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has not been established.3. The admitted and establis...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.B. Advani and Company (Mysore) (Priva ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1985
Reported in: [1987]163ITR638(KAR); [1987]163ITR638(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. As parties in these cases are common and one of the questions that arises for determination is common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. Messrs J. B. Advani & Company (Mysore) (Private) Limited, Bangalore, which is the common assessee in these cases, is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipments such as chokes, amplifiers and T.V. antennas at its factory situated at Nasik and distribution of newsprint paper, electrodes and export of coffee, tea and pepper. 3. For the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 relevant to the accounting years ending on March 31, 1975 and March 31, 1976 respectively, the assessee filed its returns before the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle-I, Bangalore, inter alia, claiming sums of Rs. 8,881 and Rs. 9,342 respectively as deductible expenditure under section 35B of the Income-tax Act of 1961 ('the Act'), for the aforesaid assessment years. The assessee also claimed deduction of premiums paid on an i...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa and ors. Vs. K.V. Srinivasa Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant9; ILR1985KAR2370; 1985(2)KarLJ169
ORDER1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the trial Court on I.A. No. 2, whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioners herein has been rejected as being not maintainable and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.2. One Smt. Akkayyamma, was admittedly the owner of the residential premises No. 1686, III Cross, Ramachandrapuram, Nagappa Block, Sreeramapuram, Banglore-21. The petitioners claim that they are the legatees under the 'Will' D/- 21-6-1969, executed by Smt. Akkayyamma, under which the premises in question is bequeathed to them. A portion of the said premises is under the occupation of the tenant (respondent herein). The petitioners sought for the eviction- of the respondent on the grounds under Sec. 2 l(l)(a) and (h) of the Kar. Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The tenant (respondent herein) resisted the eviction petition inter alia by filing application I.A. 11, under which, besides questioning the genuineness of the al...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim Vs. Syed Abdul Rahaman
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1988; 1985(2)KarLJ238
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. Whether a person, who was in occupation of a tenanted premises along with its tenant, against whom a petition for eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act'), if continues to occupy that premises even after the death of the tenant, can be brought on record in the pending eviction petition as the legal representative of the deceased tenant, is the dispute which is required to be resolved in This Revision Petition.2. One Abdul Rahim was a tenant of certain premises under Abdul Rahaman, the Respondent here, who filed in the Court below, an eviction petition under the Act, seeking eviction of the former from that premises. During the pendency of the eviction petition, Abdul Rahim, the tenant died. One Abdul Majeed, who was living in the said premises along with its tenant and continued to live therein after the death of the tenant, made an application, I.A.III, in the eviction petition purporting to be under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil P...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasiddappa Vs. Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4170; 1985(2)KarLJ225
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. It is really creditable to notice that petitioner who joined service asDraft brand a non S.S.L.C., in Survey Settlement and Land Records has reached fairly an high rank in ministerial cadrevisit Head Clerk. His service particulars as furnished are - (i) promoted as SecondDivision Clerk on 13-10-1959; (ii) as First Division Clerk on 15-4-1968, and (iii) as Head Clerk on 8-10-1974.Achievement is creditable as he has reached this rank after passing Revenue Higher, Accounts Higher, General Law Parts I and II prescribed as Departmental Tests for these various posts in the Department.2. As things stood thus, he has been visited with reversion as per order dated 26th April 1979 on the ground that he has not passed Service and Kannada LanguageExamination, as prescribed in Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examination) Rules, 1974. Though, averments contained in para-3 of the Petition to the effect that he has passed various prescribed examination...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »