Karnataka Court June 1986 Judgments

Jattayya Rama Naik Vs. Glain

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR822; 1987(1)KarLJ259

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents is disposed of by the following order after hearing the Counsel for petitioner as well as the contesting respondents.2. The petitioner is the tenant of 5 guntas of land in S.No 530/5 as decided by the Land Tribunal, Honnavar, Kasaba Village, Honnavar Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. The grant of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal is questioned in this Court by the landlords who are respondents 1 to 5. In other words, no finality has been reached in regard to the rights acquired by the petitioner.3. On 14-12-1981 the Chief Officer of the Honnavar Town Municipal Council issued a building licence subject to certain conditions in favour of the petitioner. The licence mentions the survey as 530/5, building No. 725. The respondents 1 to 5 aggrieved by the said grant of licence moved the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, under Sub-section (1) of Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act...

Savithri V. Rao Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Mangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR2167; 1986(2)KarLJ132

Rama Jois, J.1. These Writ Appeals are presented against the common Judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petitions presented by the appellants in which they had questioned the legality of the notices issued by the Corporation of the City of Mangalore, ('the Corporation' for short) by which the licenses granted in favour of the appellants for occupying a portion of the premises in a public market belonging to the Corporation were terminated and they were called upon to vacate the premises.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under : 16 shop premises belonging to the Corporation were disposed of by auction in the year 1980. The notification proposing to hold a public auction of the 16 shops was issued by the Corporation on 22-10-1980, vide Annexure-A. All the appellants were successful bidders for securing the license for the period ending 31-3-1982. In terms of the conditions of auction, each of them deposited an amount equal to three months license fee and als...

Dr. B. Rama Murthy Vs. Selection Committee

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3068

ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Denial of admission to petitioner to Post-Graduate Super Speciality in Cardiology and selection of third respondent to that coarse is questioned in this Writ Petition.2. Contention of petitioner is, whichever criteria is adopted for selection, be it merit or reservation, he should have been preferred for admission instead of third respondent. Selection Committee has not Sled any statement of objection justifying selection, except making records available. Third respondent has filed statement of objection to-day justifying his selection.3. Admission as per Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission to Post Graduate Courses) Rules, 1985, is on merit, subject to reservation. Marks in medicine forms the basis for determining merit. Petitioner has secured 63 per cent; whereas third respondent has secured 58 per cent.In order of merit as arranged by Selection Committee, Sriyuths Somashekar, Gajanana Narayana Gudigar and A.G. Ravishankar are ranked at Sl. N...

K.V. Abdulla Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1986]161ITR589(KAR); [1986]161ITR589(Karn)

R.S. Mahendra, J.1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari quashing Exhibit-B, the order of the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-V, Bangalore (ITO), dt. 26-8-1978, issue of a writ of Prohibition restraining respondent-1 from taking any steps pursuant to Exhibit-B and also to declare the provision relating aggregation of agricultural income for rate purposes, as unconstitutional offending Art(s) 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 2. The facts leading to this petition are these : The petitioner is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). He has his year of accounting ending on 31st of March every year. For the asst. yr. 1976-77 the Finance Act, 1976 (Finance Act), was applicable to the petitioner and he filed his return declaring his income from his business property as also income from agriculture. He, however, sent a representation Exhibit-A on 14-8...

Sunandamma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1987]164ITR446(KAR); [1987]164ITR446(Karn)

K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). The following questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest amount of Rs. 2,000 payable on the estate duty cannot be deducted out of the property income 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest of Rs. 3,960 from her income either under the head 'Business' or under the head 'Other sources' ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and a co-widow of late Sri K. Gururajachar. Gururajachar died on February 9, 1969, leaving behind the assessee and the other widow, Smt. Bhoomiamma, with extensive business and large properties. However, the assessee and the other widow could not pay estate duty payable in respect of the estate of Sri Gururajachar. They o...

Sanna Hutchamma Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1987Kant98; ILR1986KAR2749; 1986(2)KarLJ155

Rama Jots, J. 1. This writ appeal is presented by the appellant against, the order of the learned single Judge dismissing her writ petition in which she had challenged the order of the State Government confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner made under S. 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (the Act for short) suspending the resolution of the Town Municipal Council, Turuvekere, dated 30-4-1957 by which a site was granted in favor of one T.K.Siddppa who sold the same in the year 1961 to the appellant.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : --A site measuring 12' X 95' was granted to one Didapper by the resolution of the T.M.C., Turuvekere on 30-4-1957 at the rate of four annas (25 pause) per square yard (vide Annexure-A). Pursuant to the resolution, the value of the site payable by the said Didapper was calculated at Rest. 37/1- and the said amount was remitted to the T.M.C., Turuvekere by T. K. Didapper, (AnnexureB). The chat of the site was also changed in...

K. Vs. Abdulla V. Income Tax Officer and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)41

R. S. Mahendra, J. - In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari quashing Exhibit-B, the order of the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-V, Bangalore (ITO), dt. 26-8-1978, issue of a writ of Prohibition restraining respondent-1 from taking any steps pursuant to Exhibit-B and also to declare the provision relating aggregation of agricultural income for rate purposes, as unconstitutional offending Art(s) 14 and 19 of the Constitution.2. The facts leading to this petition are these :The petitioner is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act). He has his year of accounting ending on 31st of March every year. For the asst. yr. 1976-77 the Finance Act, 1976 (Finance Act), was applicable to the petitioner and he filed his return declaring his income from his business property as also income from agriculture. He, however, sent a representation Exhibit-A on 14-8-19...

D. Kumara Siddanna Vs. First Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Mahendra, J.1. The petitioner, a coffee planter in Coorg District, is an assessee under the Income-tax Act - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' - with his accounting year ending on 31st of March every year. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 1977-78. In the course of assessment proceedings, the First Income-tax Officer, Mercara Circle, Mercara, being of opinion that the petitioner was liable to pay compulsory deposit under the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974 - hereinafter referred to as 'the CDS Act' - after completing the assessment, issued a notice of demand exhibit A, under section 14(1) of the CDS Act, for compulsory deposit of Rs. 50,000. The petitioner gave a representation, exhibit C, that his income excluding the capital gains does not exceed the minimum prescribed and he is not liable to deposit any amount. The Income-tax Officer did not agree with the assessee and issued a notice, exhibit B, under section 10 of the CDS Act to the p...

K.V. Abdulla Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Mahendra, J.1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing exhibit B, the order of assessment made by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, Bangalore, dated August 26, 1978, issue of a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 from taking any steps pursuant to exhibit B and also to declare the provision relating aggregation of agricultural income for rate purposes unconstitutional as offending articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 2. The facts leading to this petition are these : The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. He has his year of accounting ending on 31st of March every year. For the assessment year 1976-77, the Finance Act, 1976 ('the Finance Act'), was applicable to the petitioner and he filed his return declaring his income from his business, property, as also income from agriculture. He, however, sent a representation, exhibit A, on August 14, 197...

R. Lilavati Vs. Bank of Baroda and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1986]60CompCas658(Kar)

1. This is a defendant No. 4's revision against the judgment and decree dated July 15, 1983 passed by the First Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, in S.C. No. 137 of 1982 decreeing the suit against all the defendants including defendant No. 4. 2. The plaintiff granted credit facility of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in the name of their firm - defendant No. 1. The first transaction was the demand loan of Rs. 12,000 and the other cash credit hypothecation facility to the limits of Rs. 25,000. Ultimately, after giving deduction to the amounts paid, the suit was filed by the plaintiff bank for Rs. 8,644.08. Defendant No. 4 had stood surely for both the loans. 3. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 did not contest the suit. It is only defendant No. 4 that resisted the suit. She raised a contention that as the plaintiff creditor allowed the hypothecated properties to be lost, her liability as a surety stood discharged. The second contention urged is that the acknowledgment given by defendants Nos. ...