Karnataka Court September 1986 Judgments

Fernandis Vs. House Rent Controller

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3249

ORDERHakeem, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by Respondent-2 holding the petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant of the premises in question and directing his eviction therefrom under Section 10-A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act).2. To appreciate the points involved in this case it is necessary to briefly state the facts of the case.3. The petitioner has been in occupation of a portion of the premises bearing No. 11, Moyenville Road, Langford Town, Shantinagar, Bangalore-25, on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-, having taken the same on lease from one Mrs. P.J. Middieton. He claims to be in occupation of the premise since the year 1976 He has further alleged having filed a declaration under Section 31-B of the Act for regularisation of his occupancy ; but so far no orders are passed thereon. Under a registered sale deed dated 9-10-1981 the said Mrs. P.J. Middleton sold the entire property, including the premises in question, to respondent-3. It...

Chandrasekharappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These two Petitions are being disposed of by the following common order as they involve the same substantial question of law though the prayers in the two petitions are differently worded.2. In Writ Petition No. 16184 of 1979, the petitioner has prayed that this Court may issue a Writ or Direction or Order in the nature of a declaration declaring that Exhibit 'E', the Government Order dated 22-2 1978, is illegal and unlawful. He has also prayed that a Writ of Prohibition may be issued to the Government prohibiting it from taking any action in respect of the petitioner, who is working under the third respondent in the first of the petitions, viz., The Karnataka State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter referred 10 as 'the KSCLD Bank'). The other prayers are general prayers for consequential reliefs, if any.The prayer in Writ Petition No. 1452 of 1980 is to quash the Government Order dated 22-2-1978 produced at Exhibit 'G', which...

Ganesh Vs. K.S.T.A.T.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR1831; 1987(1)KarLJ378

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice and after hearing the Counsel for parties is disposed of by the following order.2. The learned Government Pleader who had been directed to produce the records has produced the same and the same is perused.3. The facts leading to this petition may be briefly stated and they are as follows: The Regional Transport Authority Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as the R.T.A) at its meeting held on 19th May 1984 considered the representations and assessed the need for providing bus services on the route Kunjathbail to State Bank Via Kavoor, Kuloor, U. Stores, Lady-hill, Hampankatta and to fix the number of stage carriages under Sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was designated City Route No. 13B. At the meeting, after perusing the records, the R.T.A. came to the conclusion that on account of the traffic generated at Ku...

Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1987)61CTR(Kar)265; [1987]166ITR836(KAR); [1987]166ITR836(Karn)

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The Tribunal, by these references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act'), has referred the following three question for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of sections 35 and 43(1), capital assets which are purchased for an contained to be utilised in scientific research would quality for depreciation allowance under section 32 in the year other than the year of installation where the entire amount has been allowed under section 35(2)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax payable under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, was inadmissible as a deduction in computing the total income of the assessee 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction of 61.1 per cent. of Rs. 62,000 donated by...

Ramalingappa Gurulingappa Madarkhandi Vs. Deputy Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR216

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this Petition, the petitioners who are residents of Hunnur Village in Jamkhandi Taluk of Bijapur District feel aggrieved by the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishadas, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A true copy of the impugned notification is to be found at Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. It is seen therefrom that Hunnur Mandal has 25 seats totally having a population in the mandal at 9920 spread in as many as 5 Villages. They are Hunnur, Madarkhandi, Kadapatti Ramatirtha, Hanchinhal and Bandiganni as per Annexure-D to the Writ Petition which is described as the working sheet maintained by the Tahsildar, Jamkhandi. It is seen therefrom that Hunnur has a population of 5505 and has 14 seats. Madarkhandi with a population of 2176 has 5 seats. Kadapatti Ramatirtha with a po...

Seetharama Rao Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR825

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter was heard at the stage of preliminary hearing on 21-8-1986. Learned Government Pleader Shri Somayaji was directed to seek instructions and submit. He was also furnished with a copy of the Writ Petition.2. Petitioner is an employee of the third respondent-Chitradurga House Building Co-operative Society Ltd, Surcharge proceedings under Section 69 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been initiated against him and they are pending before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chitradurga Sub-Division, Chitradurga. By an order dated 5th May 1984, the second respondent dismissed a dispute raised by the third respondent directing the third respondent to make appropriate application to initiate surcharge proceedings as a result of which the Society as now initiated surcharge proceedings through the Registrar. In that circumstance the petitioner applied to the Assistant Registrar, the s...

A. Malle Gowda Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1988)67CTR(Kar)91; [1987]168ITR381(KAR); [1987]168ITR381(Karn)

K.A. Swami, J.1. The Karnataka Agricultural Income Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 (Karnataka) Ordinance No. 13 of 1980), Promulgated by the Governor of Karnataka on November 11, 1980, was not replaced by an enactment. Consequently, it held the filed only for a period of six months. That period falls within the asst. yr. 1980-81. Among several amendments, the Ordinance also inserted the following provision in the Schedule to the principal Act : 'The amount of agricultural income-tax computed in accordance with the preceding provisions of this part shall be increased by a surcharge calculated at the rate of ten per cent of such agricultural income-tax.' Accordingly, by taking into consideration the aforesaid provision, the petitioner has been assessed to agricultural income-tax for the year 1980-81 by levying surcharge as per the aforesaid provision by the assessment order dated April 13, 1982, passed by the Agricultural ITO, I Circle, Chickmagalur, produced as annexure-A. Pursuant to t...

B.S. Jagannatha Shetty Vs. Muthu Hengsu

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR346; 1987(1)KarLJ7

Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge, dated March 19th, 1984 in Writ Petition No. 21293/1982.2. Smt. Muthu Hengsu is an Agricultural labourer. She resides in a house in Sy. No. 127/11. She applied under Section 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for ownership of that house along with an adjoining land measuring 8 cents. She has stated that she has been residing here as an agricultural labourer for the last 27 years. The landlord, however, said that she has been residing there for the past 15 years. He further contended that the house is located at the middle of the garden and if ownership is granted to Muthu Hengsu, it would inconvenience him.3. There was a spot inspection by the Land Tribunal. It appears, at the spot inspection, the landlord agreed to give 5 cents of land in Sy. No. 236/1 instead of acceding to the claim of Muthu Hengsu in Sy. No 127/11. Accepting that offer, the Tribunal made the order as follows :It w...

A. Malle Gowda Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer

Court: Karnataka

K.A. Swami, J.1. The Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 13 of 1980), promulgated by the Governor of Karnataka on November 11, 1980, was not replaced by an enactment. Consequently, it held the field only for a period of six months. That period falls within the assessment year 1980-81. Among several amendments, the Ordinance also inserted the following provision in the Schedule to the principal Act : 'The amount of agricultural income-tax computed in accordance with the preceding provisions of this part shall be increased by a surcharge calculated at the rate of ten per cent. of such agricultural income-tax'. Accordingly, by taking into consideration the aforesaid provision, the petitioner has been assessed to agricultural income-tax for the year 1980-81 by levying surcharge as per the aforesaid provision by the assessment order dated April 13, 1982, passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, I Circle, Chickmagalur, produced as anne...

State Bank of India Vs. Padmavathamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3544

ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the order dated 28-5-1986 passed by the 7th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. 2795/86 dismissing I.A. 1 filed under Order 23, Rule 1(3) C. P. C.2. The respondent, who was the defendant in the Court below, had died before the institution of the suit in the lower Court itself. Therefore, the question of serving notice on her does not arise. It is undisputed that the defendant against whom the suit has been filed, had died prior to the institution of the suit itself. The plaintiff realised the same after the institution of the suit. Hence, he filed the Petition under Order 23, Rule 1(3) C.P.C seeking permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The Trial Court thought that the death of a party prior to the institution of the suit did not amount to a formal defect and so it refused permission to the plaintiffs to withdraw from the suit.3. Order 23, Rule 1(3) C...