Karnataka Court December 1986 Judgments
Abdul Qadar Adam and Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1986
Reported in: (1987)62CTR(Kar)1; [1987]168ITR420(KAR); [1987]168ITR420(Karn); [1987]31TAXMAN119(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. These petitions, under article 226 of the Constitution, are filed by two brothers challenging the assessments made under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (the 'Act' for short), for the assessment year 1972-73. The facts and contentions being common, they are heard and disposed of by this order. 2. In the wealth-tax statements relevant to the assessment year 1971-72, the petitioners had stated the value of property at No. 12, Miller Road, Bangalore, at Rs. 1,80,000 and the half share of each brother at Rs. 90,000. 3. The Wealth-tax Officer did not accept this value and determined the value of the property at Rs. 4,27,625 and took half share of each of the petitioners at Rs. 2,13,812 and completed the assessments on December 5, 1972. 4. This property was sold by the petitioners under three sale deeds executed on March 30, 1973, July 27, 1973, and July 30, 1973, for a total consideration of Rs. 8,00,998. In the assessment to capital gains tax for the assessment years...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. R. Nanda Gopal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR562
Desai, J.1. The respondent was the accused in C.C. No. 14251/80 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court I, Bangalore. He was the Manager of Headquarters, Karnataka Sub-Area Canteen, Cubbon Road, Bangalore. On 26-10-79 at 12 noon Shanmugam (P.W. 1) who was the Labour Inspector, Vth Circle, Bangalore, then, visited the said establishment. The accused was the manager of the canteen. He had not displayed the registration certificate as required under S. 4(2) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'). The accused also failed to produce the registers and records for inspection and thereby contravened S. 29 of the Act. After obtaining the sanction from the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bangalore, as per Ex.P. 9, P.W. 1 filed a complaint in the Court below against the accused for the said offences. 2. As the accused denied the commission of the offences, P.W. 1 was examined and Exs.P. 1 to P. 10 were produced on behalf of the compla...
Tag this Judgment!E. Krishna Narayana Vs. the Bangalore Development Authority and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Kant95; ILR1987KAR950
ORDER1. Petitioner had been allotted a site bearing No. 102 of Gangenahalli Lay Out, Bangalore measuring 60' X 48'. Thereafter in lieu of the original site he was allotted site bearing No. 34/13 measuring 60 X40 +47/2 in Austin Town Lay Out. It is the case petitioner that adjacent to this site there exists site No. 34/A which measures 30'X47'. The said site is a corner site. The contention of the petitioner is, after providing for roads etc., as per the B.D.A., Rules, the corner site will come to half of his own site referred to above and if it is so cut to the size he will be entitled to the allotment as per R. 5 of the City of Bangalore Improvement (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1972. The said rule reads thus :'5. Allotment of site to individuals or body of persons or institutions in special cases : Notwithstanding anything in R. 3. the Chairman may allot any corner site. which has not been notified under R. 3 or reserved under, R. 4 and which cannot on accoun...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Madappa Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR750
Kulkarni, J.1. Both the advocates submitted that the matter itself may be heard finally on merits. Accordingly arguments are heard and the appeal is disposed of.2. This is an appeal by the defendants against the order dated 17-114986 passed by the Civil Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in O.S. 23 of 1985, appointing a Receiver in respect of the crop in the mortgaged coffee growing properties.3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the mortgage money from the defendants due under several mortgages.4. The defendants resisted the suit.5. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Court to appoint a Receiver to pick the coffee seeds from the mortgaged properties. The said application was resisted by the defendants.6. The Trial Court ordered for appointment of an advocate as a Receiver. The defendants being aggrieved by the said order have come up with this appeal.7. According to the plaintiff, the principal amount lent under ...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Govind Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2041
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 7-3-1979, bearing No. RD 37 IMA 78, produced as Exhibit 'E', passed by the State Government, under the second proviso to Section 14 of the Mysore Personal and Misc. Inams Abolition Act. 1954 (Mysore Act 1 of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). There is also another prayer made in the Petition for a declaration that the second proviso to Sub-section(1) of Section 14 of the Act is unconstitutional. However, Sri Parthasarathy the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this prayer need not be considered and it be treated as given up. In view of this, it is not necessary to consider the validity of the second proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act.2.1 The land in question is S. No. 55 (old No. 26) situated within the limits of Vasanthapura Village, Bangalore south Taluk. It is also not in dispute and it has also been h...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Mohan, Vs. Additional Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)156; [1986]159ITR730(KAR); [1986]159ITR730(Karn); 1987(1)KarLJ349; [1986]24TAXMAN697(Kar)
K.A. Swami, J.1. In all these petitions, the validity of the surcharge levied on the amount of agricultural income-tax pursuant to the amendment effected to the Schedule to the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, by the Karnataka Ordinance No. 13 of 1980 is involved. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that, by the time the assessment order came to be made, the Ordinance lapsed as it was not replaced by an enactment; therefore, on the date the order of assessment was passed, the authority was not competent or at any rate there was no authority in law enabling the assessing authority to levy surcharge on the amount of agricultural income-tax. This contention was considered by me in W. P. No. 9197 of 1986 (A. Malle Gowda v. Agrl. ITO : [1987]168ITR381(KAR) ) decided on September 5, 1986. The relevant portion of that judgment is as follows (at p. 382) : 'The contention of the petitioner is that on the date the assessment order was passed, the Ordinance No. 13 of 1980 which in...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Suresh Vs. K.V. Sudhakar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant249
Chandrakantaraj URS, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff, whose suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 3134 of 1981 in the Court of the First Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 58,583-82 p. said to be due to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaint averment was that the defendant was carrying on business at the address given the cause title. The defendant had, according, to the plaintiff, in the course of the business carried on by him had become due to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 11,844-94 p. Later, the defendant worked for plaintiff from 8-4-1978 to 8-9-1978, while he continued to run his separate business. During the period a further sum of Rs. 25,888-00 had become due to the plaintiff by the defendant. Thereafter the defendant expressed his inability to work with the plaintiff and continued his own business from 9-10-1978. The account was completed between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant acknowledg...
Tag this Judgment!Kashibai and ors. Vs. Putalabai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant156
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 29-7-1986 in O.S. No. 109 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Civil.ludge. Bijapur. The appellants were. the defendants in the Said Suit and the respondents were the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs claimed 13 '75th share in the suit schedule properties which consisted of immovable property of the family, 4 house situate in Ward No. 3 of Bijapur town bearing city Survey No. 1076/Al/B ['A'Schdule property). Schedule-B properties are gold ornaments Weighing, twenty tolas. silver articles weighing, forty tolas, costs. brass and copper utensils in all the total value of which is Rs. 45,000M) -. They however pleaded that the plaintiff-l'% husband Ganuadhar was the member of the joint family of which Rudrappa was the 'karta' and defendants 2 and 3 were the other coparceners. besides Ganuadhar. That they own suit schedule' A' and 'B' properties as well as certain agricultural lands. That there was a pla...
Tag this Judgment!1. T. M. Mohan. 2. T. M. BelliappA. 3. T. M. Muddappa Vs. Additional A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1986
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Kar)223; [1987]168ITR384(KAR); [1987]168ITR384(Karn)
K. A. SWAMI J. - In all these petitions, the validity of the surcharge levied on the amount of agricultural income-tax pursuant to the amendment effected to the Schedule to the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, by the Karnataka Ordinance No. 13 of 1980 is involved.The contention of the petitioners is that, by the time the assessment order came to be made, the Ordinance lapsed as it was not replaced by an enactment; therefore, on the date the order of assessment was passed, the authority was not competent or at any rate there was no authority in law enabling the assessing authority to levy surcharge on the amount of agricultural income-tax. This contention was considered by me in W. P. No. 9197 of 1986 (A. Malle Gowda v. Agrl. ITO : [1987]168ITR381(KAR) ) decided on September 5, 1986. The relevant portion of that judgment is as follows (at p. 382) :'The contention of the petitioner is that on the date the assessment order was passed, the Ordinance No. 13 of 1980 which inserte...
Tag this Judgment!Shidlingappa Basawantappa Shipari and Neelappa Basawantappa Hadapad Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR336
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. These two appeals are by defendants 4 and 5. The appeals are directed against the order made in DF. OS. No. 57/1965 in O.S. No. 57/1965 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge, Belgaum.2. In the course of this judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.3. Briefly the facts leading to these two appeals, which are disposed of by the common following order, may be stated and they are as follows :--First respondent, Padmabai (in RFA. 13/77) is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 57/65. The said Padmabai was the junior wife of one Srinivas Patil. Srinivas Patil had another wife by name Sharadabai. Srinivas Patil died issueless in the year 1952. Thereafter the senior wife Sharadabai adopted one Shankar. The adoption took place in 1962. The adoption itself is not in dispute. However, in 1962, soon after the adoption, the natural father of Shankar, who was at that time a minor, sold two properties, R.S. Nos. 283 and 279 on 12-5-1961...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »