Karnataka Court April 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mayor, Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. K. Narayanaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3129
Rama Jois, J.1. In these two Writ Appeals presented by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and the State of Karnataka, the following question of law arises for consideration.Whether the election of Taxation Appeals Committee held on 24-11-1983 as per Annexure-A of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore required to be elected under Rule -18 of the Taxation Rule by majority of votes is without authority of law and invalid?2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follow :(1) The Corporation of the City of Bangalore had been constituted and functioning under the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. That Act was repealed by the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (the 'Act' for short). The Corporation of the City of Bangalore is now functioning under the provisions of the Act. Section 6 of Act reads :'The following shall be the Municipal Authorities of Corporation charged with carrying out the provisions of this Act, namely :--a) the Corporation ;b) the Stan...
State of Karnataka Vs. Veeranna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2245
Rama Jois, J.1. This Writ Appeal is presented by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition of the respondent-an ex-Village Accountant in the Revenue Department of the State Government and setting aside the order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against him.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :- Disciplinary proceedings were instituted by the Government against the respondent, who was a Village Accountant. The inquiry on the charges levelled against him was conducted by the Vigilance Commission, who found the respondent guilty of the charges. Accepting the finding, the disciplinary authority i.e., the State Government, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service against him. Aggrieved by the order, the respondent presented the Writ Petition.3. The Writ Petition was allowed solely on the ground that a copy of the report of the inquiring authority was not furnished to the respondent and thereby an opportunity to put-f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.S. Rajendrappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: (1987)59CTR(Kar)47; [1986]162ITR666(KAR); [1986]162ITR666(Karn); [1986]27TAXMAN460(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. In these references made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('Tribunal'), at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following common question of law for the opinion of this court but in respect of different assessees. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directing the Income-tax Officer to exclude the capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural lands from the assessments 2. In order to appreciate the common question referred to us, it is necessary to notice the facts as found by the Tribunal. 3. The assessees in these cases, as owners of different pieces of lands situated within 8 kms. of the Corporation of the City of the Bangalore, received different amounts as compensation from the Government on their acquisition by the Government. 4. In thei...
Mahaveer Drug House Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: [1986]63STC262(Kar)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are either common or inter-connected, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. M/s. Mahaveer Drug House, Bangalore, a partnership firm of partners, is primarily engaged in the purchase and sale of pharmaceuticals, drugs and other ancillary goods. The firm is a registered dealer on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, XIV Circle, Bangalore ('CTO') under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act'). 3. For the assessment periods from (i) 1st November, 1978 to 21st October, 1979 (1978-79); (ii) 22nd October, 1979 to 7th November, 1980 (1979-80); (iii) 11th November, 1980 to 27th October, 1981 (1980-81); (iv) 29th October, 1981 to 15th November, 1982 (1981-82) and (v) 16th November, 1982 to 4th November, 1983 (1982-83), the assessee filed its returns under the Act and CST Act before the CTO on different dates. On an examination of the returns fil...
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Narayana Bhatta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1887
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. This Appeal by the Karnataka Bank, the unsuccessful plaintiff, directed against the judgment and decree dated 12-9-1983, passed in O.S. No. 13 of 1981 on the file of the Civil Judge, Srirangapatna, dismissing its suit for recovery of money advanced on the security of a contract vehicle, raises certain interesting questions touching the extent of the Bar of Civil Courts' jurisdiction under the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquistion) Act, 1976.2. Plaintiff, Karnataka Bank Ltd., on 1-8-1972, agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- to S. Narayana Bhatta, the first-defendant, to enable him to purchase a new Ashok Leyland Bus to be used as contract-carriage. First defendant's father was a surety. His legal representatives are defendants 2 to 8. The State Government is defendant-9.Out of the sanctioned loan of Rs. 1,08,000/- Rs. 74,112-33 was released on 1-8-1972 for payment to the supplier of the chassis at Ananthapur. Two sums of Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 9,887-67 w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›