Karnataka Court August 1986 Judgments
V.M. Gheevarghese Vs. Commissioner, Hubli-dharwar Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR843
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 22-11-1985 passed by the respondent in No. HDC 95/JEA 2/85 placing the petitioner under suspension. The impugned order is produced as Annexure-B.2. The reasons given in the impugned order for placing the petitioner under suspension are that on a raid conducted by the Vigilance Authorities an un-explained wealth is found in the possession of the petitioner which is alleged to be beyond the known source of income of the petitioner and a criminal case is also registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is an Assistant Executive Engineer appointed by the State Government under Rule 26 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), by the Order dated 10th September 1981 produced as Annexure-A, that as per Section 91 of the Karnata...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant161; ILR1986KAR2961
Nesargi, J.1. The first defendant in 0. S. 96/82 on the file of the Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11-9-1984 decreeing the suit of respondent I plaintiff.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for a decree in a sum of Rs. 19,922.35p. as principal amount plus interest from 25-6-1975 at 21% on the said amount up to the date of filing of the suit viz., 2-8-1978 by way of damages on the ground that the amount had been wrongfully withheld by defendant 1, up to 1-8-1978.3. The trial Court has passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 27,489.95p and has further directed that future interest to be paid at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 19,922.35P. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. It is further seen that the trial Court has not awarded interest at 21 % as claimed by the plaintiff but had -cut it out to 12%.4. The undisputed facts are that on the plaintiff-Company placing ...
Tag this Judgment!Chaitanya Pulvarising Industry and anr. Vs. Karnataka State Pollution ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR928; 1987(1)KarLJ134
ORDER1. Petitioner, a Small Scale Industry, carrying on the business of Pulverising Dolomite stones, has filed this petition challenging the order of the Karnataka State Pollution Board (hereinafter referred to as 'Board') dated 4th December, 1985, by which, he is prohibited from operating his industry and directing him to obtain clearance certificate before establishing the same in any other place. This writ petition could have been avoided, if only, the petitioner on his part and the Officers of the Board on their part had adopted a purposeful attitude and were more pragmatic without offending the legal provisions. Human weaknesses being what they are, problem is not without solution.2. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') came into force on 16th May 1981. The Board constituted under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is deemed to be the Board for purposes of Prevention of Air Pollution Act. Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Timber Industries and Ors. Vs. Madras Sapper Ex-Servicemen's ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas44(Kar); ILR1988KAR237; 1987(3)KarLJ496
1. A preliminary objection has been taken by learned counsel for the respondents, namely, that the winding-up petition is not maintainable under the provisions of section 583 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act'), on the ground that the respondents society is not an association within the meaning of section 582(b) of the Act. 2. Section 582 of the Act comes under Part X of the Act which provides for winding-up of unregistered companies. The relevant provisions of section 582 read as under : '582. For the purposes of this Part, the expression 'unregistered company' - (a) shall not include -.... (b) save as aforesaid, shall include any partnership, association or company consisting of the more than seven members at the time when the petition for winding-up the partnership, association or company, as the case may be, is presented before, the court. ' 3. The case of the petitioners is that it is an association registered under the Societies Registration Act and consists of more...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sree Valliappa Textiles Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)57CTR(Kar)65; [1986]166ITR548(KAR); [1986]166ITR548(Karn); [1986]29TAXMAN150(Kar)
R.S. Mahendra, J.1. In this reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Karnataka-II, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 80J of the Income-tax Act does not postulate that the claim for deficiency relating to an earlier assessment year, should have been made in that earlier year and quantified in that years' assessment before its deficiency can be carried forward and set off against the profits of the subsequent years? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assesses company is entitled to have the relief under section 80J computed in respect of the assessment year 1968-69 in the as...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Labs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant166
ORDER1. The subject-matter and question of law arising in these cases is one and the same. However, since the factual circumstances and reliefs claimed are distinct and separate, I propose to deal them separately.W. P. No. 5245/1986Petitioner is a Private Limited Company. It manufactures drugs and claims to have supplied its products to various Government establishments, V.I.S.L. and Central Food Technological Research Institute. Established as Small Scale Industry in 1985, it has obtained licence from the competent Authorities.2. On 29th Jan. 1986, Respondent-2 Director of Health and Family Welfare Services invited Tenders from Manufacturers and their Authorised Agents for the supply of drugs, specialities, chemicals, Tinctures and Surgical items. The last date for submission of Tender was 31-3-1986. Petitioner filed this petition on 21st March 1986. By an interim order did. 25th March, 1986, he was permitted to submit his Tender, and Cl. (9) of the Tender conditions was kept in abeya...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatalakshamma Vs. Sub-inspector of Police, Chikkamagalur and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant79; ILR1987KAR1180
Puttaswamy, J. 1. This appeal is by the appellant who was the petitioner and is directed against the order dt. 13-11-1981 of Doddakale Gowda, J. rejecting her writ petition No. 27137 of 1981 at the preliminary hearing stage.2. The appellant claims to be the owner in possession of Agricultural Lands bearing S. No. 445/1 and 446/2 of Malalur village, Chickmagalur Taluk and respondent 3 herein claims to be their tenant in possession.3. Before the Land Tribunal, Chickmaglur Taluk, Chickmaglur (Tribunal), constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Act,) respondent-3 had made an application under S. 48-A(1) of the Act for conferment of occupancy rights over the said lands which is resisted by the appellant on diverse grounds.4. On 25-5-1979 the Tribunal allowed the application made by respondent-3 and granted him occupancy rights over the said lands, the validity of which was challenged by the appellant before this Court in W. P. 9289 of 1980. In that writ petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysore Minerals Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: [1986]162ITR562(KAR); [1986]162ITR562(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, Actg. C.J.1. This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act (for short 'the Act'). The Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing a further sum equal to 25% of the total expenditure incurred in connection with the visit of a Japanese delegation, without treating it as expenditure on entertainment and restricting it as per section 37 of the Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing further deduction of expenditure in connection with the general body meeting, without treating it as an expenditure in the nature of 'entertainment expenditure' and restricting its allowance as per section 37 of the Act ?' 2. The asse...
Tag this Judgment!Sangappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1555
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by Murlidher Rao, J., this case is posted before us for disposal.2. For the all-round development of the Urban area of Davangere City of Chitradurga District, the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1976) ('the Act'), inter alia, provides for the establishment of an Improvement Board named after that City called 'The Improvement Board, Davangere' (Board) from 1-11-1975 (vide Section 1(3) of the Act) which is functioning ever since then with a Chairman and other Members appointed from time to time.3. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Act, Government in Notification No. HUD 245 MIB 83 dated 15-12-1983 (Annexure'A'), inter alia, appointed Respon-dent-8 as the Chairman of that Board, the petitioner and three others non-officials, as the Members of that Board without, however, specifying their term of appointment. That notification which is material reads thus :' NOTIFICATIONIn exercise of the powers con...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Hafeezulla Pasha Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3349
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dt. 23-8-1985 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, IV Court, Bangalore City, Whereby he has while rejecting the application made by the petitioner has allowed the application made by the respondent M/s. Sangeetha Auto Finances and directed to entrust interim custody of the vehicle in the question to him on his executing solvent surety binding himself to produce the vehicle before the Court as and when directed to do so and to kept the vehicle in good road-worthy condition, pending disposal of the criminal case. 2. The order is one purporting to have been made under S. 457 Cr.P.C. in relation to the Lorry bearing No. MED 5447 of which the petitioner Mr. Syed Hafeezulla Pasha son of Pacha Saheb is admittedly the registered owner, as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act. On the complaint of one Syed Ismail, said to be the driver of the vehicle, working under the petitioner, that on 21-12-1984 when the lorry was parked near Bharath Tal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »