Karnataka Court August 1985 Judgments
Shivaji High School Vs. Prabhakar Jotiba Bamane
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3979
Jagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1.This appeal is directed against the order dated July 27, 1983 made by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 13556/1983.2. Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the legality of the order of the Karnataka Private Educational Appellate Tribunal, Belgaum, directing the management to pay the salary of respondent-1 in accordance with the order of the said Tribunalmade in Appeal No. K.P.E.I. 16 of 1980.3. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :Prabhakar Jotiba Bamane was a teacher in the Shivaji High School at Kadoli in Belgaum Taluk & District. He was placed under suspension in contemplation of certain disciplinary proceedings with post facto sanction for suspension obtained from the Joint Director of Public Instructions as required under the provisions of the Grant-in aid Code. The said suspension was the subject-matter of an appeal before the Tribunal Constituted under the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2451; [1985]60STC361(Kar)
Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. In these two petitions the petitioner is the Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., Belgaum, a public limited company. The petitioner is a manufacturer of aluminium and its alloys in all forms, ingots, aluminium billets and other by-products. 2. The petitioner-company is a registered dealer both under the KST and CST Acts. For the period 1st April, 1973 to 31st March, 1974 the petitioner's turnover was subjected to tax under the KST and CST Acts by assessment order dated 21st July, 1975 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment), Dharwar. 3. The petitioner assesses returned a gross turnover of Rs. 12,93,87,969.09 for the period in question. In the assessment completed under the KST Act, the sales effected within the State were subjected to tax at the rate of 6 per cent. The assessee claimed exemption in respect of its inter-State sales of the aggregate value of Rs. 1,03,28,598.74. The assessing officer, on scrutiny of the documents produced by the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Mahadev Hegde Vs. Ramakrishna Jatti Naik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3490
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. Civil Revision Petition 3818 of 1982 by the decree-holders is directed against the order dated 19-10-1982 passed by the Munsiff, Honavar, in Execution Case No. 4 of 1981 dismissing the same.2. Civil Revision Petition 3832 of 1982 by the decree-holders is directed against the very same common order dated 19-10-1982 passed by the Munsiff, Honavar, inExecution Case No. 40 of 1982 dismissing the same.3. The predecessors of the decree-holders were the owners and the landlords of Revision Survey Nos. 200/1, 200/2, 200/3, 200/4, 201/1, 202/2, and were the mulgenidars of Survey Nos. 214/8A and 214/8B. The deceased judgment-debtor Jatti Naik, Respondent No. 6 Narayan andRespondent No, 7 Devappa were the tenants in respect of the said eight lands.4. An application was filed by the predecessors of the present decree-holders against the erstwhile tenants namely deceased Jatti and Respondents 6 and 7 before the Tenancy Mamlatdar, Honavar, under the provisions of the Bombay Tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3394
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Validity of Rules/Orders absorbing certain officers of Development Department of districts of Gulbarga, Bidar and Raichur. Panchayat Extension Officers having no parent department and ministerial station the establishment of Taluk Development Boards including Ex-District Boards/ District Local Boards staff absorbed previously in Taluk Development Board Services, in corresponding posts of Revenue Department, as on 28-7-1976 are questioned by a few officers of Revenue Department on the ground that interpolation of these officers has marred their prospects, promotional chances have become bleak and rules are ultra vires; while grievance of some absorbed officials is that denial of their previous services is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; some plead for absorption in an equivalent cadre and a few of them contend that absorption without providing right of option is illegal.2. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3956 of 1980 are Sheriste...
Tag this Judgment!Eskayef Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Kar)151; [1986]160ITR164(KAR); [1986]160ITR164(Karn); 1985(2)KarLJ469
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. As the parties and the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common, I propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. M/s. Smith Kline & French (India) Limited, a foreign company incorporated in England with limited liability, which had a manufacturing unit for manufacture of drug and pharmaceuticals and a branch office at Bangalore City, was the original petitioner in these cases and under a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by this court, has merged in an Indian company called M/s. Eskey Ltd., which has now come on record as the petitioner in the place of the original petitioner. But in order to appreciate the questions raised, these cases will be examined as if there was no amalgamation and the foreign company-will hereafter be referred to as the assessee. 3. For the assessment year 1979-80 relevant to the accounting year ending on November 30, 1978, the assessee company filed its return under section 5 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. T.V. Ganji
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant94; ILR1985KAR3613
ORDER1. This is a revision by defendants- 1 to 5 against the order dated 29-31982 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8 of 1981 affirming the order dated 18-4-1981 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Dharwad, in O.S. No. 214 of 1980 allowing I.A. No. 2 and granting the injunction restraining the defendants from effecting any search or seizure of Kumari Asava with 16 herbs in the list produced on 13-4-1981 manufactured for sale by the plaintiff under Drug licence in his possession and either at Hubli in his manufactory or at his depots in any place in Dharwad District. 2. The plaintiff claims to be manufacturing Kumari Asava No. 2 under L-2 licence issued by the Excise Commissioner, Karnataka. According to him, the defendants have no right to search and seize his Kumari Asava preparations. According to him, the defendants have been harassing him by illegally and unnecessarily searching, inspecting and seizing his production known as Kumari Asava No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Bhat Vs. Rao Talithaya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3552
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 1st January; 1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannads, Mangalore, in Civil Revision Petition No. 148/81 affirming the order dated 23-6 1983 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Managlore, in HRC No. 92/79 directing eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The eviction petition was filed on two grounds falling under Section 21(1)(a) and (j) of the Act. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondent-landlord has failed to make oat a case that the premises are reasonably and bona fide required for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and such demolition is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building its place of the premises sought to be demolished.3. Though Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent contends that no revision Peti...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Abdul Jaleel
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1205; 1985(2)KarLJ474
ORDERDesai, J.1. The respondents in these two Revision petitions are Silk realers. The Assistant Director (Enforcement), Department of Sericulture, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore on verification of the accounts of the respondents, found that they had disposed of silk reeled by them outside the Silk Exchange in violation of Section 8A of the Karnataka Silkworm Seed Cocoon and Silk Yarn (Regulation of Production, Supply, Distribution and Sale) Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules and notifications issued thereunder. On the basis of that report, the Deputy Director (Enforcement), Department of Sericulture, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, registered cases against the respondents. The Director of Sericulture, on hearing them, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on each of the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the Director of Sericulture, the respondents filed Criminal Appeal No. 47/1981 and 48/1981 respectively on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ban...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotiba Shankar Karole Vs. Gajanan Channappa Angolkar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1859; 1987(1)KarLJ271
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order dated 31-5-1982 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Belgaum, in HRC. Re vision No. 177/80 affirming the order dated 20-8-1980 passed by the learned First Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, in HRC. No. 323 of 1976 directing eviction of the petitioners from the schedule premises on the ground of sub-letting2. The premises in question is a non-residential premises (a shop) bearing C.T.S. No. 110/A, Shahapur, Belgaum. The father of the 2nd respondent, who was the owner of the premises in question, mortgaged it under a possessory mortgage to the first respondent. At the time of execution of mortgage, the first petitioner was the tenant. After becoming mortgagee of the schedule premises, the first respondent, initiated the proceeding for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that the first petitioner has sub-let the premises in question to the 2nd petit...
Tag this Judgment!D. Basappa Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR826(KAR); [1986]160ITR826(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In this reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (Central Act No. 27 of 1957) ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ('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 assessee was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 1,69,950 representing the loan taken from the Life Insurance Corporation of India on insurance policies in view of the provisions of section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question of law referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts of the case in the first instance. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family ('HUF'). For the assessment year 1974-75, relevant to the valuation date March 31, 1974, the assessee filed his return under the Act before the Wealth-tax Officer, Mercara ('WTO'), inter alia, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,69,950 'as a debt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »