Karnataka Court June 1985 Judgments
Mohamed Haneef Vs. Thirthahalli Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2793
ORDERKudoor, J.1. This Criminal Petition, one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'Code') is by the accused Mohamed Haneef in C C. No. 577/1982 on the file of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C.Thirthahalli for an offence under Section 409 and in the alternative under Section 408 of the I.P.C. initiated upon a charge-sheet filed by the Thirthahalli police under Section 408 and alternatively under Section 409 I.P.C.2. In the course of the trial, the petitioner filed an application on 25-5-1983 contending that the prosecution was bad for want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code. The Magistrate after hearing both sides and withoutpronouncing order on the application, framed a charge against the accused under Section 409 I.P.C. and alternatively under Section 408 I.P.C. and commenced the trial. The accused has filed this Petition to quash the proceedings initiated against him.3. Sri K.S. Desai, learned Advocate for the accused, presented two arguments for co...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Kar)17; [1986]157ITR512(KAR); [1986]157ITR512(Karn); [1985]23TAXMAN565(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. These references arise out of a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, made in ITA Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4/Bang/1980 for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 in the case of the respondent-assessee. 2. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, Bangalore, the following common question of law is referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest credited to the suspense account is not chargeable to interest-tax ?' 3. The assesses company is a banking company and had received interest on loans and advances during the previous years relevant to the three assessment years in question. 4. The assesses company credited the interest that accrued during the three relevant accounting years, viz., Rs. 78,910, Rs. 67,330 and Rs. 38,591, respectively, to an account styled as 'Interest Suspense...
Tag this Judgment!Keshawa Trading Company and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1985
Reported in: [1986]62STC102(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Whether the suo motu revisional power conferred by section 22-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act') has been exercised or initiated within a period of four years from the date of the order or not as required by section 22-A(2) of the Act and therefore barred by time or not is the short and interesting question that arises for determination in these cases. In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 16098 of 1981 in some details as illustrative only and the other cases in general. 2-1. Writ Petition No. 16098 of 1981. - For the assessment year 1970-71 the purchase turnovers of paddy effected by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 12,69,286.25 and Rs. 29,93,521.26 was brought to tax under the Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi 'CTO', in his assessment orders made on 29th September, 1973, and 30th April, 1974. Against the said orders of th...
Tag this Judgment!Chondana Gopala Vs. Chondana Monnappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR994
Nesargi, J.1. When the memorandum of this appeal was presented, it was found that, substantial question of law was not formulated as required by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There were other defects also noticed by the Office of this Court. The papers were returned on 11-3-1985 for needful being done. The appeal was represented on 8-4-1985 stating that needful had been done. The Office found that the substantial question of law had not been formulated. Hence it re turned the papers on the very day. The Appeal was again re-presented on 27-5-1985 stating that needful had been done. Even then, it was found, and it is a fact, that the substantial question of law has not been formulated. To formulate substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal is mandatory requirement of Section 100 C.P.C.2. Thus, in view of the above, it is seen that right from 11-3-1985 up-till 27-5-1985 this objection has not been removed though the papers had been returned on three occasions. ...
Tag this Judgment!Keshawa Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2132; 1985(2)KarLJ172
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. Whether the suo moto revisional power conferred by Section 22-A(1) of theKarnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act') has been exercised or initiated within a period of four years from the date of the order or not as required by Section 22-A(2) of the Act and therefore barred by time or not is the short and interesting question that arises for determination in these cases. In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 16098 of 1981 in some detail as illustrative only and the other cases in general.2-1. WRIT PETITION NO. 16098 OF 1981 : For the assessment years 1970-71 the purchase turnovers of paddy effected by the petitioner amounting to Rs 12,69,286-25 and Rs. 29,93,521-26 was brought to tax under the Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi ('CTO') in hisassessment orders made on 29-9-1973 and 30-4-1974. Against the said orders of the CTO, the petitioner f...
Tag this Judgment!Shama Iyengar Vs. Mysore Sugar Company Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4161
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Order, dated 18th April 1985 of first Respondent by which petitioner's service is terminated, is questioned in this Writ Petition.2. Order recites that termination is due to expiry of contractual period and in compliance of terms of agreement, a sum of Rs. 9,788-43 ps. is offered as salary for three months in lieu of notice. Contention of petitioner is that on expiry of contractual period of three years he hascontinued as a regular employee in the establishment of MYSUGAR and termination without holding an enquiry or providing an opportunity of hearing is arbitrary and illegal.3. In order to sustain a Writ Petition, it is contended MYSUGAR is an authority or an instrumentality of the State, hence, orders passed by it are amenable to Writ jurisdiction. Thus, it has become necessary to consider whether MYSUGAR is an authority or an instrumentality of the State in the light of principles enunciated by Supreme Court.4. Undisputedly first Respondent is a Company r...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and ors. Vs. I.T.C. Limited and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1985
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC17; 1985(5)LC2013(Karnataka); 1985(21)ELT655(Kar); [1987]165ITR342(KAR); [1987]165ITR342(Karn)
1. As the questions that arise for determination in these appeals between the same parties are interconnected, we propose to dispose of them by a common judgment. 2. M/s I. T. C. Ltd., a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, which is respondent-1 before us, petitioner No. 1 in W.P. Nos. 11792 of 1978 and 2413 of 1978 out of which these appeals arise and will be hereafter referred to as the respondent. The respondent is inter alia engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes and tobacco products in its five factories situated in different parts of the country, one of which is situated in the City of Bangalore, with which factory products only we are concerned in these appeals. As manufacturer of cigarettes and tobacco products, the respondent is exigible to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act No. 1 of 1944) and the Rules made thereunder ('the Act'and 'the Rules'). 3. For the periods from (1) 17-2-1972 to 31-1-1972, (2) 16-2-...
Tag this Judgment!Siddabasappa Vs. Anjaneyalu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2886
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the Learn-ed District Judge, Bellarymade in HRC.CRP. 21/1978. That revision had been preferred by the landlord, who is now Respondent in this Petition against the order of the Learned Munsiff, Bellary in HRC. 66/1974 on his file rejecting the* C.R.P. No. 3572 of 1984 dated 7th June 1985eviction petition filed under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Before the Learned Munsiff what was established and what cannot now be disputed is that the tenant had sub-let the premises. What made the learned Munsiff dismiss the Petition, was the fact that the so called sub lease had come into existence prior to the commencement of the Act in 1961. That fact also is not in dispute. Therefore, following a ruling of this Court in Lilly-v.-Girija Bai the Court held that there being no express legal prohibition in law then in force in Bellary District for sub letti...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmidevi and ors. Vs. the Firm of Prakash and Co. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Kant32; ILR1985KAR3087
ORDER1. In a suit of respondent I here, a partnership firm, instituted in the Court of Civil Judge at Bellary (for short 'the Court') against respondent-2 here, for recovery of certain money, an attachment before judgment of certain immovable property had been made on 6-6-1974. That suit having been decreed subsequently, the immovable property, which had been attached therein, was ordered to be sold on 21-1-1980 by the Court, in executing that decree. Thereafter, petitioners here preferred a claim in the Court respecting the said immovable property. That claim was upheld by the Court's order dt. 194-1983. That order having gone against respondent another suit, 0. S. No. 127 of 1983, was instituted by it in the Court purport in to be under R. 63 of 0. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code'), as that rule stood before its repeal by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 (for short the Amendment Act'). A preliminary. issue raised in the latter suit respect...
Tag this Judgment!R. Joseph Vs. R. Aralappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1225
Bopanna, J.1. Originally the plaintiff had taken out an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for obtaining probate of the Will of his sister late Dr. R. Mariamma (hereinafter referred to as the testatrix) and on the notices issued by this Court to other heirs of the testatrix, the defendants had entered appearance and accordingly this Probate Petition was converted into Testamentary Original Suit 1/1982.2. The plaintiff is the eldest brother of the testatrix and the defendants are the younger brothers of the testatrix.3. The testatrix died on the 26th of November 1980 at about 4-30 A.M., while she was undergoing treatment for terminal Cancer at Ashok Nursing Home, Ulsoor, Bangalore-8. At the time of her death, she was residing at 304A, 100 Feet Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore-38. It is not in dispute that she was suffering from cancer at the time of her death and she had been treated earlier both at the Cancer Hospital in Bangalore as also at Ashok Nursing Home. Some...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »