Karnataka Court July 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.
Bharath Gold Mines Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2755
Rama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Appeal, the following question of law arises for consideration:'Whether theft is an offence involving moral turpitude and if so, if the services of an employee had been terminated on the charge of theft committed in the course of his employment, the Gratuity payable to him under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the Act' for short) stands wholly forfeited in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act ?'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : The third Respondent was a workman in the service of the appellant at Bharath Gold Mines, Kolar. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him on the charge that he had committed theft of Gold of the value of Rs. 155, 61 in the course of his employment in the Gold Mines. In the inquiry he was found guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service against the third Respondent w.e.f. 18-8-1981 forfeiting all rights a...
Jayakumari and Dilharkumari (Executrixes and Trustees of Late H.H. Raj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3302
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following three questions :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the assessees under Section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that both the instalment of principal amount and interest on annuity deposit are taxable under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961?(iii) If the answer to the above second question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the proportionate estate duty payable on the annuity deposit is not deductible from the annuity deposit assessable as income ?'2. Similar questions were the subject-matter of consideration in Estate of Late H. H. Rajkuverba Dowa...
Jayakumari and Dilharkumari (Executrixes and Trustees of Late H.H. Raj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)289; [1987]165ITR792(KAR); [1987]165ITR792(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetiy, Actg. C.J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following five questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer on the assessees under Section 168 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that both the instalment of principal amount and interest on annuity deposit are taxable under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (3) If the answer to the above second question is in the affirmative, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the proportionate estate duty payable on the annuity deposit is not deductible from the annuity deposit assessable as income (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in...
Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Charles Perea ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: II(1986)ACC523; [1989]65CompCas777(Kar); ILR1986KAR2627
P.A. Kulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by defendants Nos. I and 2 against the order dated August 31, 1984, passed by the District Judge, Chikmagalur, in M.A. No. 15 of 1983, reversing the order dated July 13, 1983, passed by the civil judge, Chikmagalur, in O.S. No. 51 of 1980, ordering the return of the plaint on the ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The plaintiff is the owner of a jeep bearing registration No. MYQ 9996. It was in a good condition. On April 25, 1979, the jeep was being carefully and slowly driven by him. His two brothers, his estate manager and three children were also travelling in the jeep. They were returning from Muthodi block of their estate to their main estate situated near Mallandur. He was driving the jeep keeping to the left side of the road. On April 25, 1979, at about 11-30 a.m, while the jeep was thus being driven, a lorry bearing registration No. MES 4270 belonging to the first defendant came in a rash and negligent manne...
Sukumar Vs. Deputy Commissioner for Transport
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2394
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As the questions of law that arise for determination are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. The petitioners are owners of motor vehicles detailed in their respective petitions registered as 'tourist omnibuses' outside the State of Karnataka, covered by All India Tourist permits issued under Section 63(7) of the] Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) ('the 1939 Act') by other States.3. In exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 16 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1957) ('the Act') Government of Karnataka in its Notification No. HD 210 TMI 76 dated 20-12-1976 had exempted 'tourist omnibuses' covered by All India Tourist permits of other States from payment of taxes to the State of Karnataka which continued to be in operation till 31-3-1981. On the strength of the aforesaid Notification the petitioners obtaining necessary exemption taxation cards were operating their vehicles in th...
Jayanna and Bros. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2655; 1986(2)KarLJ143
Puttaswamy, J.1. These appeals are by the appellants who were the Petitioners and are directed against the common order dated 27-10-1983 of Doddakale Gowda, J. rejecting their Writ Petition Nos.18727 to 18731 of 1983 at the preliminary hearing stage.2. For the period from 1-4-1974 to 31-3-1976 the appellants had agreed to transport paddy and rice in their lorries at the rate of Rs. 1.55 per Km. per quintal and were so transporting them.3. When there was a sudden increase in the rates of fuel and oils, the appellants and other contractors represented to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga ('DC') and the Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore ('Director') for enhancing the rates of transportation charges from Rs. 1.55 per Km. per quintal to Rs. 1.75 Per Km. per quintal which they assert was granted by the Director and was rightly implemented by the DC by making payments at the enhanced rates. On the payments made to the appellants, there is no dispute between the parties.4. But, on ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Kar)38; ILR1986KAR3299
Jagannatha Setty, Actg. C.J. 1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals') order who accepted the claim of the assessee and allowed further deduction of Rs. 32,675 under Section 80G '2. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee in all made donations of Rs. 2,65,350 out of which it claimed deduction under Section 80G to the extent of Rs. 1,32,675, being 50 per cent. of the total donations. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the assessee's claim. He restricted the deduction to Rs. 1,00,000 only. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner following the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hyderabad Race Club v. Addl. CIT : [1979]120ITR185(AP) , held that the deduction claimed by the assessee must be allowed Accordingly, ...
Sajjan Raj Vs. House Rent and Accommodation Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR776
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Writ Petition 799/86 is preferred by the occupant of the premises in question bearing No. 16, Eagle Street, Bangalore-1. Writ petition 3547/86 is preferred by the landlord of the premises in question. The allottee of the premises in question is respondent-4 in the first writ petition and respondent-3 in the second one. The petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 16-10-1985 passed by the Rent and Accommodation Controller, Civil Area, Bangalore (for short, the 'Controller') in case No. HRC. ACC 499/85; and also the order dated 6-12-1985 passed by the Deputy Commisioner, Bangalore in HRC Civil Appeal Nos. 223 and 224 of 1985-86.2. On a report made by the Revenue Inspector on 24-7-1985 that the premises in question was vacant as it was found locked, the Controller issued a notice to the landlord on 24-7-1985 to intimate the vacancy or to show cause as to why the vacancy should not be notified suo motu. The landlord by his reply dated 31-12-1985 informed t...
Robert D'Silva Vs. Roshim Enterprises and Anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant57; 1986(1)KarLJ120
ORDER1. This Revision under S. 115; of the Civil P.C. is by the defendant in Original Suit No. 80 of 1085 on the file of the Munsiff Chickmagalur. It is directed against the order of the civil Judge, Chickmagalur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 of 1985 setting aside the order of the trial court and granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant from removing the cut-timber from the private forest area.2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the suit are as follows -Plaintiff had an agreement with the owners of the private forest by which it standing timber either exploiting it by himself or by calling upon somebody to exploit on his behalf. With that agreement, he entered into another agreement with the defendant by which the defendant agreed to pay certain scenes in a phased manner on the occurring of certain events specified in the terms of the agreement by which he was to cut and remove timber after making the payments. That the defendant has made some of the payments numerat...
H. Padmanabha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2480; 1987(1)KarLJ176
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners who are tenants of non-residential premises in the city of Bangalore and elsewhere in the State have questioned the constitutional validity of Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('the Act' for short).2. In order to appreciate the question arising for consideration, it is necessary to set out briefly the scheme of the Act. The Preamble to the Act reads :'An Act to provide for the control of rents and evictions, for the leasing of buildings, to control rates of hotels and lodging houses and for certain other matters in the State of Karnataka.Whereas it is expedient to provide for the control of rents and evictions, for the leasing of buildings, to control rates of hotels and lodging houses and for certain other matters.'Part-II of the Act regulates the leasing of buildings. Inter alia the provisions in this part requires the landlord of a residential or non-residential premises to give intimation of the vacan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›