Karnataka Court March 1986 Judgments

Laly Vs. Bangalore University

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR610

ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. Writ Petitions 20794, 20794A and 20794B of 1983 are filed on 29-11-1983 ; whereas Writ Petitions 12144 and 12145 of 1985 are filed on 6-8-1985. Originally, Writ Petition No. 20794/83 was filed on behalf of 70 students. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, B.Ed. examination results of the petitioners except petitioners 2, 5 and 26 are announced ; therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petition may be confined only to petitioners 2, 5 and 26 only. They have also paid additional Court fee. Therefore, though the Writ Petition is filed on behalf of 70 students, it is now confined only to the aforesaid three petitioners whose results have not been announced by respondent 1 on the ground that they are not eligible to be admitted to the course. Consequently, the Writ Petition 20794/83 is renumbered as W. Ps. 20794, 20794A and 20794B of 1983.2. In Writ Petitions 20794, 20794A and 20794B of 1983, the petitioners have sought for quashing Regul...

Khajamiya Miransaheb Mujahid Vs. Peerapasha Miransaheb Mujahid

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1987]61CompCas106(Kar); ILR1986KAR2240

M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a second appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below. The brief facts that may be necessary for disposal of the appeal may be stated and they are a follows : The appellant in this court and the court below was the defendant in the trial court. The respondent correspondingly was the plaintiff in the trial court. The plaintiff brought the suit for a declaration that certain shares bought in the name of himself and the defendant were bought solely out of his money as a matter of convenience and the defendant's name was added on. On retiring from Government service, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to transfer his interest in the shares which were acquired in several companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as he was the true and the full owner thereof. The defendant refused. Therefore, a suit for a declaration that he was the absolute and sole owner of the shares in question describ...

K.B. Foams (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bang ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3382; 1986(2)KarLJ116; [1986]62STC233(Kar)

ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner-firm supplied polyurethane foam sheets to various manufacturers for use by them as component parts of goods manufactured by them for sale within the State. During the year 1st April, 1976, to 31st July, 1977, the turnover in respect of the foam sheets supplied by the petitioner-company amounted to Rs. 12,13,614.40. The petitioner's turnover in the same goods supplied to others was also returned separately and it was Rs. 14,71,943.27. 2. These goods were liable to tax under entry 16 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act at 12 per cent under section 5(3A) of the Act during the relevant period. 3. In respect of the goods, which were sold to a registered dealer for use by the latter as component parts, they were subjected to levy at a concessional rate of 3 per cent under section 5(3A) of the Act. 4. The assessing officer made an order of assessment scrutinising the declarations filed by the dealers to whom the goods were sold an...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3418; 1986(2)KarLJ107; [1986]63STC252(Kar)

ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), and carries on business in general insurance. On the nationalisation of the petitioner-company, it is now a subsidiary of the General Insurance Corporation of India and is a Government company, as defined in section 617 of the Act. 2. The business of the petitioner-company is to insure motor vehicles, goods, machinery against damage, risk or theft, personal accidents, injuries and the like. 3. In the course of its business of general insurance of the motor vehicles and other goods, after the settlement of claims, the petitioner, sometimes, comes into possession of the insured goods, vehicles, etc., which are in a damaged condition and the claimants are compensated by the insurance company. Such vehicles and goods which come into possession of the petitioner-company are sold by it in the same condition at a salvage sale. 4. The petitioner had entered into a contract of insura...

A. Aziz Vs. Managing Director, Ksrtc

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR2007

ORDERBopanna, J.1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since a common question arises for consideration in all these petitions.2. The petitioners are all Ex badli conductors of the 1st respondent/Corporation. Their services were dispensed with by the Corporation on the ground that they were found not suitable for the posts of conductors. Such termination ex-facie was clearly violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). However, the Corporation in the year 1978 under a Settlement (also known as truce agreement) within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Act agreed that these badli and part-time employees who had put in 180 days of 'uninterrupted continuous service' and who were in the badli list or in any temporary appointment on the date of signing of the truce, would be absorbed in service subject to the availability of permanent posts. The relevant term in the settlement reads as under :'4. Badli and part-time employees.I(a) All the ...

B.S. Jayachandra Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Kar)342; ILR1987KAR1088; [1986]161ITR190(KAR); [1986]161ITR190(Karn)

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by Chandrakantaraj Urs. J., this case was posted before us for disposal. 2. Among others, the petitioner was the owner of land bearing Survey No. 61 measuring about 4 acres 22 guntas in Doddakallasandra village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, classified as agricultural land and the same was situated within 8 kms. of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bangalore. On December 18, 1972, the petitioner sold the said land to Khandhand Agarwal and others, partners of M/s. Gupta Wires and Products, Bangalore, for a consideration of Rs. 86,450. 3. For the assessment year 1973-74 relevant to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1973, the petitioner did not file his return under the Income-tax Act of 1961 (Act No. 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), disclosing the receipt of the said sum and its chargeability to capital gains tax under the Act. But, some time, in 1976, the petitioner filed his return under the Act before the Income-tax Officer (A...

Sanghameshwar Coffee Estates Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Kar)252; [1986]160ITR203(KAR); [1986]160ITR203(Karn)

K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. M/s. Attikhan (Biligiri) Limited, Bangalore ('Attikhan'), a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, inter alia, owned an extensive coffee estates measuring about 427 acres in Chamarajnagar Taluk of Mysore District and by an order made by this court on June 19, 1981, that company had merged in another public limited company called Sanghameshwar Coffee Estates Limited, Bangalore ('Sanghameshwar'). As transferee of all the assets and liabilities of Attikhan, Sanghameshwar has filed these revision petitions before this court. We will, however, treat them as the assessee.2. On the coffee estate owned by it, Attikhan had constructed and maintained a Hindu temple employing the services of a poojari or a priest and had incurred pooja expenses from time to time.3. For the assessment years 1976-77 to 1980-81 relevant to the corresponding previous years, the assessee filed its returns under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka...

Joseph Vs. Registrar, Mangalore University

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the communications dated 25-1-1986 bearing No. P.O.4326/85-86 and P.O.4327/ 85-86 addressed to the petitioners produced as Annexures A and B respectively, informing them that as per the result announced by the Mangalore University, they have failed in the M.D.S. Part-II (Orthodontics) Examination held in December, 1985.2. There is bias pleaded against the internal examiner; but he has neither been made a party nor that contention is urged during the course of argument. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the same.3. The contention of the petitioners is that the Board of Examiners for M.D.S. Part-II (Orthodontics) Examination consists of 4; and out of them 3 are external examiners and one is an internal examiner; that the three external examiners have unanimously opined that the petitioners are entitled to be declared as 'passed' whereas the internal examiner ha...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Naidu's Bar and Restaurant

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1987]166ITR352(KAR); [1987]166ITR352(Karn)

R. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the question referred for the opinion of this court is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in granting registration to the firm been though clause 15 of the instrument of partnership curtailed power of two of the partners to terminate the partnership and seek dissolution ?' 2. At the outset, it is necessary to peruse clause 15 of the instrument of partnership which has been held as an impediment by the Revenue for grant of registration. Clause 15 in the deed of partnership in question reads as follows : 'That, in case any of the second and third partners intend retiring from the business, tree months' notice of their intention to do so should be given to the other partners. On such retirement, second and third partners are entitled to take only the amount outstanding to their credit at the time of retiremen...

Mohamed Safiulla Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3072

ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. In these series petitioners pay is required to be determined after a lapse of nearly two decades after regularisation of their services as Basic Health Workers in the Department of the Health and Family Planning Services.2. Facts briefly stated are :In the inception petitioners were appointed as local candidates between 1960 and 1964 on a consolidated salary but not on time scale pay of post in the implementation of a scheme known as 'eradication of Malaria'. Consolidated salary of Rs. 50/- was enhanced to Rs. 75/- per month in 1961. After they underwent training meant for Health Inspectors shifted as Basic Health Workers with effect from 1-10-1964. Their services are regularised as per Official Memorandum dated 28-6-1972 with effect from 13-3-1967. They contended that they were unaware of order of regularisation till 1982. Most of them are posted as Junior Health Inspectors after training in 1960 and some or almost all of them are promoted as Senior Health I...