Karnataka Court February 1986 Judgments
Sarojamma Vs. Iliyas Ahmed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1173
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This C.R.P. is preferred against the order of eviction dated 21-1-1985 passed by the XI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, in H.R.C. No. 970/83. Records of the original and execution proceedings are obtained.2. The petitioner-tenant was granted one year for vacating the schedule premises which expired on 21-1-1986. After the expiry of that period, the petitioner has filed the top noted C.R.P. against the order of eviction along with an application for condonation of delay. On 29-1-1986 this Court has directed issue of emergent notice to the respondent and has also issued interim order staying further proceedings in H.R.C. No. 970 of 1983 on the file of XI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, for a period of six weeks from 29-1-1986. The interim order is passed in terms of the prayer made in the application for stay. Though the prayer made in the application is not properly worded, the effect of the interim order is to stay the operation of th...
Tag this Judgment!Arokyamari Vs. House Rent Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1099
Rama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Appeal, important questions of law regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), arise for consideration, they are :(i) Whether the restriction imposed by Section 4(2) of the Act on the right of the landlord to occupy the premises till after one week from the date of termination of the proceedings under Section 8 of the Act does not extend till the termination of proceedings finally in an appeal preferred under Section 12 of the Act.(ii) Whether the Rent Controller has the power or is under an obligation to consider the claims of unsuccessful applicants after having made an order in an enquiry commenced under Section 8 of the Act allotting the premises in favour of one of the applicants in the event of such allottee not availing the order of allotment ?2. The facts of the case, in brief, which have given rise to the above questions are:(i) The premises bearing No. 48, Na...
Tag this Judgment!Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Kar)36; [1987]163ITR679(KAR); [1987]163ITR679(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J. 1. In this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the 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 sum of Rs. 2,10,704 is an expenditure in the nature of capital or revenue ?' 2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts that are not in dispute. 3. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing automobile ancillaries. 4. For the assessment year 1970-71, relevant to the accounting year ending on December 31, 1969, the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 2,10,704 towards 'listing expenses' of its shares on the Bombay Stock Exchange and claimed the same as revenue expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›