Karnataka Court November 1988 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. R. Susheela (Legal Representative of La ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Kar)138; [1989]176ITR232(KAR); [1989]176ITR232(Karn); 1988(3)KarLJ101; [1990]49TAXMAN281(Kar)
Rajendra Babu, J.1. In these two references, we are concerned with the interpretation and application of the provisions relating to additional wealth-tax on urban immovable properties which were in force between the years 1971-72 and 1976-77. 2. One late M. Kasturi Ranga Setty was a partner of a firm, Krishna Flour Mills, Bangalore, representing his Hindu undivided family. The said firm owned a factor, land buildings which had been leased out to a company. The assessee's share of interest in the immovable properties of the firm in which the assessee was a partner was brought to additional wealth-tax. The assessee contested the levy of additional wealth-tax on these properties on the ground that these properties were used for the purpose of the business of the firm of which he was a partner and was, therefore, not liable. The Revenue took the stand that since the firm was using the said assets for its business and the assets were not used by the assessee, it was not entitled for exclusi...
Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth-tax Vs. Indumathi R. Kirloskar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: ILR1990KAR893; 1988(3)KarLJ377
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These are common references at the instance of the Revenue for the years 1970-71 to 1973-74 arising under the Income-tax and the Wealth-tax Acts. The common questions referred for our consideration are as follow : '(i) Whether under the trust deed dated October 4, 1945, the assessee had the power to relinquish her beneficial interest in the trust properties during covertures (ii) Whether there was a valid relinquishment of her interest under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, by execution of the release deed dated August 23, 1969, by the assessee (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the trust funds was not assessable in the hands of the assessee after August 23, 1969 (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had no life interest in the trust properties after execution of the release deed dated August 23, 1969, which can be included in her net wealth for he assessment years 1670-71 to 1973-74 ?' 2. A trust was creat...
R. Govendaraj and ors. Vs. Govt. Tool Room and Training Centre
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1864
1. In these petitions the petitioners who are employees of the Government Training Centre have questioned the legality of the order by which the subsistence allowance paid during the period of suspension is sought to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : The respondent is a state Government establishment. The petitioners are employees on the establishment of the respondent. Departmental enquiries on certain charges were instituted against 3 petitioners. The first petitioner was suspended on 5th September 1985, the 2nd petitioner on 22nd July 1985 and the 3rd petitioner on 23rd August 1985. In the enquiry the petitioners were found guilty of the charges. Punishment by way of reduction of their pay was imposed by the orders dated 19th August 1987, annexures 'D', 'E' and 'F'. 3. As far as the validity of the order imposing the penalty is concerned, the petitioners have presented separate writ petitions. In these writ petitions, ...
N.G.E.F. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: (1991)IILLJ139Kant
ORDER1. The issue as to whether the petitioner/Management was justified in dismissing the second respondent from service is referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bangalore. During the pendency, workman sought for an interim relief under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act to direct the Management to make payment of atleast 50% of the wages last drawn pending disposal of the dispute. The Additional Labour Court, as per the impugned order dated 9th May 1986 (Annexure-A), has granted relief, the validity of which is challenged in this petition. 2. Main ground on which dismissal order is challenged is non-compliance of principles of natural justice in a domestic enquiry. The plea of the workman was that the enquiry is being prolonged unnecessarily and has no means to survive. Accordingly, he sought for the grant of interim relief. Management resisted the relief on the ground that even before recording the finding on the preliminary issue viz., whether the Management has c...
Commissioner of Income-tax/Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Indumathi R. Kirloskar.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Kar)121; [1989]176ITR422(KAR); [1989]176ITR422(Karn)
S. RAJENDRA BABU J. - These are common references at the instance of the Revenue for the years 1970-71 to 1973-74 arising under the Income-tax and the Wealth-tax Acts. The common questions referred for our consideration are as follow :'(i) Whether under the trust deed dated October 4, 1945, the assessee had the power to relinquish her beneficial interest in the trust properties during coverture ?(ii) Whether there was a valid relinquishment of her interest under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, by execution of the release deed dated August 23, 1969, by the assessee ?(iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from the trust funds was not assessable in the hands of the assessee after August 23, 1969 ?(iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had no life interest in the trust properties after execution of the release deed dated August 23, 1969, which can be included in her net wealth for he assessment years 1670-71 to 1973-74 ?'A trust was created o...
Mrs. Leela Palani Vs. J.R. Manjunath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1616
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 12-1-1988 made by the Principal District Judge, Kolar, in Misc. Petition No. 15/1987 on his file.2. The petitioner is the respondent in the Court below. She is aggrieved by the order under revision by which O.S.No. 6/1983 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, K.G.F. is withdrawn to the Court of the District Judge, Kolar, to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law by the latter Court. The facts leading to this petition may be stated briefly and they are as follows: Respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit for declaration of the title to their respective shares In the suit schedule property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decree she had obtained in HRC.No. 51/1976 as they were not parties to the eviction proceedings and that the order obtained by the defendant therefore would not be binding on them. The plaintiffs al...
K. Ram Mohan Rao Vs. Endowments Commissioner in Karnataka, Bangalore a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant192; ILR1988KAR3289
ORDER1. The material facts of the case are as follows A canteen building existing in the Traumata Trumpet Hills which is a construction of the Muzrai Department of the State of Karnataka belonging -to the State Government is the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition. After the building was ready for occupation, the first respondent issued a notification inviting tenders from the bidders for lease of the building for the purpose of running a canteen in order to cater to the needs of the pilgrims and others. The petitioner was one of those who offered tender and being the highest bidder, was the recipient of the lease for a period of 3 years. His tender was accepted by an order of the first respondent dated 29-7-1983 stipulating the rent payable as Rest. 2,405/- per month. In addition to the rent, the petitioner was required to pay a donation to the Karnatka State Charities at the rate of Rs.30/- per square yard apart from payment of an advance of 6 month's rent. The petitioner...
C. Somasekhar Vs. K.R. Chokkalinga Raju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR851
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J1. These petitions are filed by the tenants. The respondent is the landlord. He is a retired official of the State Government. He filed eviction petitions under Section 21-C of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The said provision was added as an amendment on 20th March 1984. The petitioners filed eviction petitions on 15th April, 1984 enclosing a certificate dated 3rd April 1984 which reads thus:-'This is to certify that Sri. K.R. Chokkalinga Raju was working as Deputy Marshal in the Office of the Secretary, Karnataka Legislature Secretariat and retired from service with effect from 31-3-1982 afternoon on attaining the age of superannuation. This certificate is issued to him at his request in terms of Sub-section (i) of Section 21(c) of the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1984 issued in Notification No. LAW 89 LGN 83 dated 20-3-1984.Sd/-KRISHNA RAO PAWARUnder Secretary Karnataka Legislature.'Thereafter under Section 21-C(a)(i) and ...
H.G. Mahadevappa Vs. G. Basavarajappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1072; 1989(1)KarLJ269
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Defendant's application to reject the plaint unde Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the lower Court. Hence this revision petition.2. According to the petitioner (defendant), the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and hence the same should have been rejected.3. Parties are brothers. The suit was 'for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right to make use of his back-yard as shown in the sketch GHIJ, without prejudice to the right of the defendant for passage'. Cause of action, is stated as having arisen from June 1987 when the defendant served a caveat petition on the plaintiff, wherein, defendant anticipated filing of a suit by the plaintiff in respect of the subject matter. According to the plaint averments, a portion of the back-yard to the house was In the possession of the plaintiff in which he made preparation to have a Gobar Gas Plant, on seeing which, the d...
J.S. Chikkannavar Vs. Venkatesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)KarLJ24
ORDERHiremath, J.1. The petitioners herein 36 Members of Dharwad Bar Association against whom process was issued by the order of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, dated 29-8-1987 on a private complaint filed by the respondent herein Venkatesh Bhimrao Kulkarni another member of the same Bar. That complaint was for offences under Sections 499, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The operative portion of the order at para-4 reads as follows:-'However, the offence under Sections 499 and 504 I.P.C. are not made out prima facie. The complainant though submitted that the resolution was given a wide publicity in a daily Samyukta Karnataka newspaper and thereby the accused have defamed in the eye of public, same is not produced. Hence, I order to register the case against accused Nos. 2 to 54 for an offence under Section 506(1) I.P.C. Register it and issue summons.'2. Referring to the ingredients of the offences of criminal intimidation as enumerated is Section 503 I.P.C., the Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »