Karnataka Court July 1985 Judgments

Munivenkatappa Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR897

ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by judgment debtor-1 against the order dated 20-11-1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Chickballapur, in Ex. Case No. 34/1980 dismissing I.A. No. 3 filed by the 1st judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C.2. The decree holder-Bank sued out execution to recover the money and brought the property of judgment-debtor-1 to sale. The said sale was conducted on 13-4-1981. The final bid of the decree holder was accepted before the Court on 1-6-1981. On 1-6-1981 the matter was adjourned to 2-7-1981 for confirmation of sale. On 25-6-1981 judgment debtor-1 filed an application I.A. No. 3 under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C.3. The decree holder raised a contention amongst others that the Petition was barred by limitation.4. The said contention raised by the decree holder appealed to the executing Court and it held that the petition I.A. No. 3 tiled by judgment debtor-1 under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. was barred by limitation and accordingly it dismissed the Petition....

Col. G.K. Burli Vs. Bangalore Development Authority

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR1628; 1985(2)KarLJ510

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the allotment of site No. 37, J.P. Nagar Extension, Sarakki Layout, Bangalore, in favour of the 3rd respondent, as approved by the Government under its order dated 1-1-1983 bearing No. HUD. 470. MNX/82; and farther confirmed by the Government on 5-7-1983 and further to declare that the said allotment is illegal and ineffective. The petitioners have also sought for issue of a direction to the 3rd respondent restraining it from putting up any construction on Site No. 37, J.P. Nagar Extension, Sarakki Layout, Bangalore; and further to direct respondents to retrain from preventing the petitioner and others of that area from making use of the said site. They have also sought for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to preserve the site in question as park and site No. 36 of the same area, as civic amenity site.2. The petitioners are the residents of J.P. Nagar Extension formi...

Mandanna Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR2822

ORDERVenkatesb, J.1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in these two proceedings, they were clubbed and heard together.2. These are applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 1973. They are by persons who are arrayed or shown as the accused by the police in their respective crime numbers. The request is to quash the investigation that are being conduct-ed by the concernedpolice.3. Before examining the claims of the petitioners on merits, the first question that has to be resolved is as to whether this Court exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. interfere with the investigation pending with the police.4. Following a previous ruling of this Court in Chandrasekhara v. State, 1978(2) K.L.J. 273 and the decisions of the Supreme Court having a bearing on this question this Court, in Maheshwarappa v. State of Karnataka, 1983(2) K.L.J 85 has held that the High Court exercising its powers under Section 482 of theCode cannot interfere in the course of the investigation by ...

State Bank of India Vs. Hegde and Golay Limited

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR2364

ORDERBopanna, J.1. This Petition is filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') having its Branch Office at J.C.Road, Bangalore, under the provisions of Section 439(i)(b) read with Section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act 1956 (in short 'the Act') praying for the winding up of the respondent company Hegde & Golay Limited (in short 'HGL') and for other incidental reliefs.1.1 HGL was incorporated on 2/7/1965 under the Act initially as a Private Limited Company, limited by shares. It became a public Limited Company with effect from 27/6/ 1974 by virtue, of the provisions of Section 43A of the Act. Its nominal capital is Rs 50 lakhs divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs 100/-each. The issued and paid-up capital or credited as paid-up is Rs 50 lakhs. HGL, among other things, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various types of horological instruments both electronic and mechanical, printed circuits, their accessories and parts.2. It is the case of the...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.B. Advani and Company (Mysore) (Priva ...

Court: Karnataka

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 ins...

Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Karnataka State Transpo ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR409; 1987(1)KarLJ304

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 28th November, 84, passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the K.S.T.A.T.), in Appeal No. 65/83, produced as Annexure-B. The petitioner has also further prayed that the appeal be remitted to the K.S.T.A.T. with a direction to hear and decide the same along with Appeal Nos. 30, 70 and 103 of 1983 pending on the file of the K.S.T.A.T., preferred against the resolution granting a stage carriage permit to the petitioner.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the application filed by the petitioner and the third respondent related to substantially the same route except for a distance of about 4 miles, therefore, the appeals preferred against the resolution granting the permit to the petitioner ought to have been heard along with the appeal in question. Whereas Sri A. S. Viswanath, learned Counsel fo...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hegde and Golay Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In this case, 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 Tribunal was right in holding that no part of the sum of Rs. 26 lakhs could be taken as having accrued or arisen or deemed to have accrued or arisen to Messrs. Bernard Golay S. A. in India during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 ?'2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts in the first instance.3. In pursuance of a technical collaboration agreement between the assessee and M/s. Bernard Golay S. A., a Swiss company, a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs was paid by the former to the latter before March 31, 1973.4. For the assessment year 1973-74 relevant to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1973, the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle, Bangalore, ...

Palghar Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1985Kant282; ILR1985KAR3989

ORDER1. The Miscellaneous First Appeal and the Revision Petition by defendant No. 1 are directed against the order dated 16-2-1983, passed by the Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, in O. S. 10/83, ordering attachment of moveables before judgment.2. The plaintiff filed the suit against defendants 1 and 2 to recover Rs. 43,74,821.30 as the price of the sale of stainless steel flats to defendant No. 1. After filing the suit on 16-2-1983, the plaintiff filed the application under Order 38, R. 5 C.P.C. seeking attachment of the moveables of defendant No. 1 before judgment alleging that defendant No. 1 with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of the decree that may be passed against him, is trying to dispose of his property.3. The court below after hearing the plaintiff's counsel issued ex parte order of attachment of the moveables under Order 38, R. 5. The defendant No. 1 being aggrieved by the said ex parte order of attachment of the moveables, initially filed the Misc. Appeal. However, as a ...

Mallanna Vs. Abdul Nabi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1986Kant221; ILR1985KAR3835; 1985(2)KarLJ364

1. This is plaintiffs second appeal. He filed the suit for redemption of the suit house. The respondent-defendant contested the suit on various grounds, namely, on the basis of Exhibit D-5 an unregistered document written on a 'stamp paper of the value of Rs.1.50.2. The plaintiff disputed the execution of Exhibit D-5. But the two Courts below have held that he has executed Exhibit D-5 in favour of the defendant.3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the owner of the put property. It consists of two portions. On 5-3-1956 the plaintiff mortgaged one portion of the suit house in favour of the defendant for a sum of Rs.600/-. This document is registered. The period stipulated is four years i.e. up to 5-3-1960. On 20-5-1958 the plaintiff once again created another usufructuary mortgage over the same property taking a sum of Rs.400/- from the defendant. The period is four years i.e. up to 20-5-1962. This again is a registered deed. On 9-2-1960 the plaintiff mortgaged the remainin...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1986]157ITR549(KAR); [1986]157ITR549(Karn)

K.S. Puttaswamy, J. 1. This appeal is by the appellant who was the respondent and is directed against the order dated March 6, 1981, of Chandrakantaraj Urs J. allowing W.P. No. 4803 of 1979 (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, v. CIT] filed by the respondent/petitioner since reported in : [1981]132ITR461(KAR) .2. M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore, a wholly owned Central Government company, engaged in the manufacture of aeroplanes and its parts, who is the respondent before us and was the petitioner before the learned judge, is an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Company Circle, Bangalore. For the assessment year 1970-71, relevant to the accounting year ending March 31, 1970, the assessee filed its return before the Income-tax Officer who on March 15, 1973, completed the assessment disallowing certain allowances claimed by it on certain grounds that, are not necessary to notice. Against the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before th...