Karnataka Court March 1986 Judgments
P.B. Gajendragad Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2423
ORDERDoddakalegowda, J.1. Charge in a disciplinary proceedings is that, petitioner, as power of attorney holder of his mother Smt. Balawa Basappa Gajendragad, filed O.S. No. 40/70 on the file of Civil Judge, Bellary against one Sri H. M. Gurulingappa for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and odd, due on a promissory note and was authorised to deal as if it is his own money thereby contravened Rules 16(2) and 21(4) of Government Servant Conduct Rules.2. Inspector General of Prisons, who is the appointing authority for petitioner, after holding an enquiry recorded a finding that charges levelled against him are proved and ordered dismissal from service. In appeal punishment is converted into compulsory retirement. Hence, this Writ Petition challenging orders of Inspector General of Prisons as well as of State Government.3. Charge itself recites that he filed a suit as power of attorney holder of Smt Balawa Basappa. No rule or law prohibits a Government servant from securing legitimate ri...
Tag this Judgment!Uppara Basappa Vs. Spl. L.A.O.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2102; 1987(1)KarLJ215
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. All these five cases are by the claimants.2. It is undisputed that the claimants in all these cases being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer filed applications under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Officer within ninety days from the date of service of the notice issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act.3. In C.R.P. 238 of 1985, though the application was filed by the claimant in the year 1976, the Land Acquisition Officer made reference to the Civil Judge in December 1983. In C.R.P. 2675 of 1984, the reference has been made in April 1983 i.e., nearly about eleven years after the application under Section 18(1) was made to the Deputy Commissioner. In C.R.P. 706 of 1985, the Land Acquisition Officer has made the reference after a lapse of nearly eight years. In C.R.P. 237 of 1985, the reference has been made by the Land Acquisition Officer after a lapse of nearly eight...
Tag this Judgment!Madappa Vs. Lingappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant60; ILR1986KAR2081; 1986(2)KarLJ52
ORDER1. Civil Revision Petition No. 75 of 1981 by the petitioner is directed against the order dated 20-11-1980 passed by the Munsiff, Mandya, in Misc. No. 57 of 1976 filed under Sec. 47 C.P.C. dismissing the same.Regular Second Appeal No. 363 of 1981 by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-1-1981 passed by the Civil Judge, Mandya, in R.A. No. 320/76 confirming the judgment and decree dated 411-1976 passed by the Additional Munsiff Mandya, in O.S. No. 126 of 1975 decreeing the plaintiffs suit 2. The revision petitioner in D.R.P. No. 75 of 1981 is the appellant in the second appeal. He has been referred to as the petitioner throughout in the course of this judgment.Respondent-1 Lingappa in Misc. No. 57 of 1976 is respondent-1 in the second appeal respondent-2 Basavaiah in Misc. No. 57 of 1976 is also respondent-2 in the second appeal. The said Basavaiah has died and his legal representatives have come on record. They are referred to as respondents-1 and 2 in...
Tag this Judgment!Anupama Stationery Supplies Vs. Vishnuvardhana Enterprises and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: [1987]62CompCas271(Kar); ILR1986KAR2998
P.A. Kulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated March 9, 1984, passed by the VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, in S. C. No. 2372 of 1982 dismissing the same. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants alleging that he had issued a crossed cheque 'account payee only' bearing No. 110329 for Rs. 2,641 in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 in that suit is the plaintiff's banker. The aforesaid cheque was drawn on defendant No. 2 alone with special instructions to pay it only to the account of the account payee. Defendant No. 1 in whose favour he had drawn the cheque, later on informed him that he had not received the payment under the cheque in question and he had not received the cheque. The plaintiff after enquiry came to know that the cheque which was issued No 3 who endorsed it to the plaintiff's banker, defendant No.2, Karnataka Bank. The karnataka Bank on account of the endorsement made by defe...
Tag this Judgment!Prahlad Venkanna Mundargi and Etc. Vs. the Gadag Betageri City Municip ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant183
ORDER1. The petitioners in the three petitions are tenants of the 1st respondent, the City Municipal Council, Gadag., in the market premises known as G. G. Market i.e., the Grain Grocery Market. On 16-1-1985, the Finance Standing Committee of the 1st respondent - Town Municipal Council passed a resolution, by which the rents for the shops in the. G. G. Market area were revised classifying the entire market mainly into three types of shops. They are exterior shops, the interior shops and the extreme interior shops. The special classification made for exterior shops and some other accommodation may be ignored. The tenants of the exterior shops were required to pay, Rs. 225/- per mensem w.e.f. 1-4-1984, while the tenants of interior shops were required to pay Rs. 150/- and the tenants of extreme interior shops were required to pay Rs. 100/per mensem. The tenants of the premises in G. G. market were informed of the proposed change inviting their objections, The Association of tenants on 18...
Tag this Judgment!Pierce Leslie India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1986
Reported in: [1988]174ITR623(KAR); [1988]174ITR623(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant is not entitled to deduction under section 35B in respect of the commission of Rs. 90,851 paid by it to the agents in India ?' 2. The assessee paid commission in India to Indian agents to the extent of Rs. 90,851 in connection with its export business. The assessee claimed weighted deduction to the extent of 50% of that amount on the ground that it is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively on obtaining information regarding markets outside India for goods, services or facilities (section 35B(1)(b)(ii)). The Income-tax Officer declined to give the weighted deduction asked for on the ground that the said commission was paid by the assessee in the usual course of business. On appeal, th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Cap Steel Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Kar)134; ILR1986KAR3306; [1986]162ITR533(KAR); [1986]162ITR533(Karn)
1. These references are under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The common question referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court is as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the net interest income should be capitalised in each year ?" 2. The assessee-company borrowed funds from financial institutions for the purpose of installation of plant and machinery and also for construction of buildings. After spending certain amounts, it deposited the excess money available with it in term deposits and earned some interest income out of those deposits. Before the Income-tax Officer, the assessee contended that the interest income should not be brought to tax and that it should be given set off against the interest payable on that part of the borrowings. The Income-tax Officer did not accept that contention. He held that the gross interest payable should be capitalised along with the other expenses ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Srimal Rikabchand and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: [1987]166ITR193(KAR); [1987]166ITR193(Karn)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. These references are under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing permission to the Revenue to raise the ground of applicability of section 147(b) ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. For the assessment year 1973-74 corresponding to the previous year ending November 5, 1972, the assessee filed a return on August 28, 1973, and the assessment was completed on December 7, 1973. For the assessment year 1974-75 corresponding to the previous year ending October 25, 1973, the return was filed on September 28, 1974, and the assessment was completed on March 15, 1975. The Income-tax Officer, while completing the assessment of another firm by name M/s. Sukhani & Co., found that the partners of the assessee (firm) were either the same or very clos...
Tag this Judgment!Siddalingappa Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3023
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners have sought for quashing the resolution bearing No. 508 dated 14th December, 1977 passed by the first Respondent allotting on lease basis, a civic amenity site measuring 236'+ 241' X 90' + 93' 2 2situated near K. R. Road, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore in favour of the 2nd Respondent for construction of Kalyanamantapa-cum-Vinayaka Temple Complex to cater the needs of all communities on outright payment of Rs. 96,990/- at the rate of Rs. 40/- per Sq. yard and subject to other usual conditions of allotment, of civic amenity site. At the time of allotment, the site in question did not bear any number. Subsequently, it is not now in dispute that, it has been assigned a number as 41. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, a lease deed for a period of thirty years has also been executed on 17-11-1978 by the first respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent.2. The Petitioners are residents of Banash...
Tag this Judgment!Somappa Hanamantappa Chouraddi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1986
Reported in: 1986(1)KarLJ387
M.S. Patil, J.1. This appeal and Revision are directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 67 of 1983 on his file, whereby he has found the accused Somappa Hanamantappa Chouraddi guilty of the offence of murder for having caused the death of his wife-Devakka on 25-5-1983 at Rainapur Village Tank, where she had gone for washing the clothes, and convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and has also directed to give set off the period of detention against the period of imprisonment. 2. It appears, it is not necessary to consider the merits of the case because, one of the main contentions advanced by Mr. H. F. M. Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused is that the accused had engaged a Senior Counsel to defend him in the case, but the services of the Senior Counsel engaged were not available either because the Senior Counsel was sick and not in a position to appear and cross-examine ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »