Karnataka Court August 1987 Judgments
Seethamma Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2973
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. To-day when the cases posted before the Court are called, no Advocate is present and no representation is made seeking adjournment of any of the cases posted before the Court. However, a resolution passed by the Bar Association, Bangalore, deciding to abstain from appearing in the Courts commencing from to-day for an indefinite period, as a mark of protest against the atrocities alleged to have been committed against a Member of the Bar hailing from Kerala State, who had come to Bangalore for discharging his professional duties, at a City Police Station, as set out in a complaint sent by the said Advocate to the Bar Association and also the subsequent death of the said Advocate under mysterious circumstances, has been sent by the Association, to Hon'ble the Chief Justice.2. On an earlier occasion, when as a result of the call given by the Bangalore Bar Association to boycott the Courts on 10-2-1983 in protest against police atrocities against a lawyer in Uttar Prad...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Puttannaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC267(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. Both the cases are listed for preliminary hearing. After issuing notice re. rule to the respondents and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the matters are disposed of finally. 2. The petitioners have challenged rule 41C of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Rules, 1959, as amended by the Karnataka Entertainments Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 3. The petitioners are the exhibitors of cinematograph shows and are assessed to entertainment tax under the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 (the 'Act'). 4. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2054 of 1987 is an exhibitor in Pavagada. The population of Pavagada is less than ten thousand. Under the scheme of the Act two modes of levy of taxes are provided. Under section 3, tax on entertainment is levied and collected on the basis of admission to entertainments. The rate of such levy is provided in the table annexe...
Tag this Judgment!P.Y. Kamat and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2942; [1988]68STC3(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are all dealers registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 14 of 1987, published in the Karnataka Gazette of April 2, 1987, the definition of the 'year' in section 2(1)(x) of the Act underwent a change. According to the amended definition, 'year' means the year commencing on the first day of April. This amendment was brought into effect from the 1st day of April, 1987. 'year' as defined earlier, read as follows : ''year' means the financial year commencing on the first day of April; but for purposes of assessment a dealer may, at his option, declare that he will adopt the year for which the accounts of that dealer are ordinarily maintained in his books and where no such declaration is made, the year commencing on the first of April and ending on the 31st of March shall be reckoned as the assessment year : Provided that a regist...
Tag this Judgment!Nirmala Chitra Mandira Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC264(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Sub-section (6) of section 4A of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 (the Act), as inserted by Karnataka Act 22 of 1985 is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The exhibitor is taxed under section 4A of the Act. Under the scheme of section 4A of the Act, tax is levied on each show of entertainment depending upon the population and the rate prescribed in the table annexed to section 4A. The exhibitor is required to file a return under rule 41C of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Rules, 1959 (the Rules), at the end of every week in form No. XA along with the proof of payment of tax calculated on the basis indicated in the permit. 3. Sub-section (6) of section 4A was inserted by Karnataka Act 22 of 1985. Under the said provision the proprietor is required to produce a certificate in the prescribed form along with his return from local authority or any other authority notified by the Government, if he has not conducted any show on any day or days d...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Ponnamma and ors. Vs. Aspinwal and Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant99; ILR1987KAR3383; 1987(2)KarLJ276
Nesaragi, J.1. The defendants in O.S No.3 of 1973 in the Court of the Civil Judge. Coorg. Mereara have in this appeal challenged the correctness and legalist of the decree dated 5-2-1976 passed by the Civil Judge.2. The facts that are undisputed may briefly be narrated as follows :One Devayya had three sons Chengappa, Uttayya and Biddayya,. On 10-12-1982 Devayya and Chengappa mortgaged the suit properties to the respondent plaintiff Company under the deed Ex. P as an amount of Rs. 40,0000 or so was due to it an view of some transactions by Chengappa. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 19of 1984 for recovery of the mortgage amount Preliminary decree was passed on 29-9-1988.3. Biddayya expired in the year 1984.4. As against the preliminary decree in O.S. No. 19 of 1954. Regular Appeal No 34 of 1956 was filed in this Court. Devayya expired during the pendency of the appeal. This Court passed a decree dated 10-1-1960 as per Ex. P-4 holding that half share in the suit properties belonging, to Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Padminibai Vs. Arvind Purandhar Murabatte and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Kant120; ILR1987KAR3583; 1988(1)KarLJ291
Chandrakantaraj URS, J.1. This appeal is by the legal representatives of deceased defendant 2. We will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the Trial Court.2. Plaintiff is the wife of the 1st defendant and mother of defendants-2 and 3. She brought the suit, claiming her share alleging that the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties; that she is entitled to a share and that the partition claimed to have taken place in the year 1960 excluding her was not binding on her. Therefore, she prayed for a decree for partition of all properties by metes and bounds. She also prayed for an injunction against creditors, namely, defendants-4 to 20 who has obtained decrees against the joint family properties.Defendants resisted the suit. Soon after the suit was filed, defendants 1 and 2 died and their legal representatives were brought on record. In that circumstance defendants 2A and 2E appeared through their counsel and filed a joint written statement in which the...
Tag this Judgment!Rangamma Vs. Appaji Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1485
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. Order dated 18th July 1987 made in a suit by the Additional Civil Judge at Mandya raising an attachment which had been made by it respecting Rs.15,000/- of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity payable to a retired Primary School Teacher of the State Government, is questioned in this revision petition.2. Petitioner-1 is the wife and petitioners-2 to 4 are the daughters of the respondent, a retired school teacher. They filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge at Mandya in the year 1983 against the respondent seeking grant of a decree for maintenance in their favour. In that suit, they sought for attachment of the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity payable to the respondent (defendant in the suit) and in the hands of the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Mandya. The Court below ordered its attachment. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Mandya, made an application in that suit seeking raising of that attachment, urging inter alia, that the Gratuity allowed to a p...
Tag this Judgment!Koshy and Thomas Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3814
ORDERNavadgi, J.Criminal Petition No. 900/85 is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) with a prayer to call for the record and proceedings in C.C. No. 874/85 on the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, V Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, and to quash the proceedings in the said case as being without jurisdiction, contrary to law and wholly illegal.2. Criminal Petition No. 901/85 is also a Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code with a prayer to call for the record and proceedings in C.C. No. 875 of 1985 pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, V Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, and to quash the proceedings in the said case as being without jurisdiction, contrary to law and wholly illegal.3 Since the question of law involved, in both the Petitions, is the same, both the Petitions are disposed of by this common order.4. The facts in both the Petitions are :The facts in Criminal Petition No. 900/85(C.C. No. 874 of ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Dasappa and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1678; 1988(2)KarLJ19
Rama Jois, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners who are toddy contractors, have questioned the validity of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Excise (Tapping of Trees) (Amendment) Rules, 1982.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : The right to vend toddy is sold by the Government annually. The year for the purpose of the sale and purchase of the right to vend toddy commences from 1st July of every year and ends on 30th June of the next year, called the Excise Year. Prior to 1 -7-1982 apart from the price required to be paid for the purchase of the right to vend toddy in a particular locality, a person who had acquired such right was at liberty to apply to the Government for allotment of trees; from which toddy has to be collected; situate in Government lands. After the trees are allotted, the concerned contractor was required to pay a rent of Rs. 1.75 per tree, in addition to the payment of tree tax per tree as prescribed in Rule 7. The rate of tax prescribed was as belo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa Alias Ramachandrappa Vs. Venkappa Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3172
Bopanna, J.This appeal by Defendant-7 is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Davanagere, in O.S. No. 6 of 1975 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for cancellation of the decree made against him in O.S. No. 5 of 1941-42 on the file of the District Judge, Shimoga, and reviving the said suit in O.S. No, 5 of 1941-42 reserving liberty to Defendant-7 to prosecute the said suit as against the plaintiff. The decree against the other Defendants 1 to 6 remained undisturbed. The parties in this Judgment will be referred to by the ranking assigned to them in this appeal.2. The facts of the case take us back to a litigation successfully commenced by the appellant four and a half decades ago in O.S.No. 5 of 1941-42 against Respondent-1 and seven others. Respondent-1 was admittedly a minor in the said litigation and so also the appellant. The said suit was for recovery of possession of immovable properties described in 'A' Schedule and also to obtain possession of moveables...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »