Karnataka Court February 1986 Judgments
Rudramma Vs. H.R. Puttaveerabhadrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1242
ORDER1. The petitioner who claims to be legally wedded wife of the respondent has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dt. 25-10-1982 passed by the J.M.F.C., Gowribidanur, in C.M.C. No. 2/82, whereby he has dismissed the application made by the petitioner under S. 125 of the Cr.P.C. as not maintainable. 2. The petitioner made that application under S. 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the respondent contending, inter alia, although the respondent married her at Gowribidanur of 29-8-1980 in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Customs and Rites and she also lived with him for one year as his legally wedded wife in his house at Hulikunte, but later on for no fault of her he started ill-treating her and at last deserted her without any sufficient cause and despite issue of legal notice to him to take her back, he had failed to do so and refused to provide maintenance to her and that she had no other source or means for her maintenance. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Sunderraj Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1324
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. This Petition and Writ Petition No. 42494 of 1982 are directed against orders passed pursuant to a common disciplinary proceedings held against petitioners. Though they are heard together, I propose to make separate orders having regard to peculiar features of each case.2. Government by its order dated 4th December, 19?3 ordered departmental enquiry under Rule 13(1) read with Rule 11(2) of C.C.A. Rules against petitioners appointing Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar, as Inquiry Officer to enquire into certain lapses committed in disbursement of crop loan to ryots at Nangali Circle, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, starting from Grama Sevak to Block Development Officer, based on preliminary enquiry report. Preliminary enquiry report disclosed imprudent haste in sanctioning loan on the date of receipt of application itself and the way in which loans were sanctioned to persons who are already dead or in the names of fictitious persons that officia...
Tag this Judgment!Binny Ltd. Vs. H.K. Madiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1529
ORDERKudoor, J.1. In this Writ Petition one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, one Krishna Bhat, owner of Petition-A' Schedule properties, has sought for a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order quashing the order dated 16-11-1981 Annexure-A, passed by the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal, Bantwal, granting occupancy fight in respect of 'A' Schedule properties in favour of the 3rd respondent-Narayana Gowda.2. The matter arises in this way :The 3rd respondent made an application on 23-8-1974 to the Land Tribunal, Bantwal, in Form-7 as required under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, claiming occupancy right in respect of S. No. 8/9A of Vittal Padnur Village of Bantwal Taluk belonging to one Mahalinga Bhatta as could be seen from the entry made in the General Daily Register (GDR) at Sl. No. 4712. In the year 1980, the 3rd respondent appeared to have filed a copy of Form-7 application said to be the copy of the application made by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Kallur Rangappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1029; 1986(1)KarLJ348
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C. J.1. The common question raided in this batch of Writ Appeals is as to the validity of the orders made by the Learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing interim custody of the vehicles seized under Section 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, ('the Act').2. The vehicles have been seized by the concerned Forest Officer/Police Officer in the belief that the same had been used as carriers to smuggle forest produce belonging to the State. Those vehicles were produced before the Authorised Officer - Deputy Conservator of Forests. Thereupon, the respondents claiming to be the persons entitled to the possession of those vehicles, approached the Authorised Officer for interim custody of the vehicles. They pleaded that they were not aware of the use of the vehicles for committing forest offences; that they had no knowledge about the commission of offences; and that therefore the vehicles should be released to their custody pendi...
Tag this Judgment!Jyothi Home Industries Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3831; [1987]64STC208(Kar)
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. By these writ petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners, who are traders and industrial manufacturers, challenge the validity of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 ('principal Act'). The principal Act received the assent of the President on 17th May, 1979. It was published in the Gazette on 1st June, 1979. The legislation is a taxing measure referable to entry 52 of List II and envisages an impost of the nature of an entry tax, intended to raise finances substituting the old octroi till then being levied by the various local authorities and the municipal bodies in the State. There was earlier a large batch of writ petitions challenging the principal Act which ultimately went upto the Supreme Court. The legislative history; the nature and incidents of the impost and the constitutional validity of the charging section were considered by the Supreme Court in State of...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dandeli Vs. Soma Gopal Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Kant179; ILR1986KAR848; 1987(1)KarLJ441
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. A Bench of this Court, while doubting the correctness of the decision of this Court in Chikkathayappa v. Spl. L. A. O., Bangalore, (M. F. A. No. 270/83 disposed of on March 19, 1985), has referred the following two questions for opinion of the Full Bench :-'(1) Whether a Reference Court making an award under S. 26 of the Principal Act after 249-1984, the date of coming into force of the Amending Act, is obligated to give effect to the provision in sub-sec. (1A). S. 23 of the Principal Act, as stands amended by the Amending Act, respecting a land, the acquisition proceeding for which had been commenced under the Principal Act prior to 30th April 1982, and respecting which an Award by -the Collector (L. A. 0.) under S. 11 of the principal Act, had been made before that date (30th April 1982)? (2) Whether the High Court deciding an appeal under S. 54(l) of the Principal Act against an award of the Reference Court after 24-9-1984, is obliged to give effec...
Tag this Judgment!Stumpp and Schuele Gmbh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Kar)121; [1986]160ITR581(KAR); [1986]160ITR581(Karn)
R.S. Mahendra, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has at the instance of the assessee referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the capital gains taxable under section 45 of the Income-tax Act in the hands of the non-resident is Rs. 12,60,000 and not Rs. 7,29,891 ?' 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is wrong in law in coming to the conclusion that the loss arising out of change in the rate of exchange of DM and Rupee between the date of purchase and sale of shares, equivalent to Rs. 5,30,109 is not a capital loss available for set off against capital gains of Rs. 12,60,000 as arrived at by the Department ?' 2. The facts a...
Tag this Judgment!Kalappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1252
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of Section 99 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, ('the Act' for short) as also an order made under the said Section on an application presented by the 3rd respondent - Society.2. The facts of the case in brief as stated in the petition are as follows: The petitioners had jointly borrowed in the year 1980 a sum of Rs. 13.000/- from the 3rd respondent-Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Chowdalu, Somwarpet, which is a Co-operative Society constituted and functioning under the provisions of the Act.3. On an application made by the 3rd respondent Society, the Assistant Registrar issued a notice dated 16-9-1981, under Section 99 of the Act, to the petitioners calling upon them to pay an amount of Rs. 14,820/-, together with further interest. Thereafter the petitioners presented this petition questioning the legality of the notice as also the contitutional validity of ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Beeranna Gaonkar Vs. Honnamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1876; 1987(1)KarLJ266
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by judgment-debtors-4(A) and 4(B) against the order dated 16-10-1984 passed by the Munsiff, Kumta, in Execution Case No. 53 of 1981 holding that the decree is executable.2. Respondent-1 Honnamma had filed a suit in O.S. No. 310 of 1945 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division. Kumta, against 17 defendants for partition and possession and also for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendants-1 and 2 were not binding on her. A preliminary decree came to be passed in that suit in February 1947. It reads as :'...
Tag this Judgment!Govindji Punshi and anr. Vs. the Tahsildar, Savanur, Savanur District, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: [1986]62STC399(Kar)
ORDERMahendra, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.), being of the opinion that the ruling of this Court in Ganesha Narayana Hegde Doddamane v. Commercial Tax Officer [1977] 40 STC 407; (1977) 2 Kar LJ 508 needs reconsideration these cases were posted before us for disposal. 2. The petitioners were partners of a firm called 'Kantilal Padamshi & Co.' of Hubli. This firm was carrying on business in cotton, cotton seeds, etc., and was also a commission agent. The firm was a registered 'dealer' both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the KST Act), and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the CST Act). The firm was assessed to taxes for different periods both under the KST and CST Acts. But before the taxes due and payable by the firm could be recovered, the firm came to be dissolved. Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Hubli, Dharwar District (hereinafter referred to as the C.T.O.) served demand notices...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »