Karnataka Court February 1988 Judgments
Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Kar)18; [1988]174ITR212(KAR); [1988]174ITR212(Karn); [1988]39TAXMAN117(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. These three references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking the opinion of this court on the following three questions of law : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 26,280 as representing expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure disallowable under section 37(2B) of the Act (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of 2/7ths of RS. 51,29,454 as held by the Tribunal or 40% of the same as claimed by the assessee (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest of Rs. 11,40,862 on 'sticky loans' is not includible in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1976-77 ?' 2. The first two questions ...
Tag this Judgment!Soni Samaratamal Bhuraj and ors. Vs. P.B. Nagireddy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant117; ILR1988KAR1895
1. Defendant in O.S. 475 of 1974 is the appellant in this appeal. Respondents-plaintiffs sued the appellant for a declaration that they have a right to use the latrine situate in Door No. 205(2) in XI Ward, Flower Street Bellary City and for mandatory injunction directing the appellant to agree for conversion of the said latrine into a septic tank latrine at the cost of both the appellant and respondents.2. It was contended by the plaintiffs that the owner of the house bearing Door No. 205(2) is the defendant, plaintiff 1 is the owner of the building bearing Door No. 205(1) and plaintiff 2 is the owner of the building bearing Door No. 206. All these buildings and another building bearing Door No. 204, belonging to Soni Jetmal, belonged to common owners by name Heerad Basamma and Rudrappa. There was an open latrine in the building bearing door No. 205(2). While alienating the buildings 204, 205(1), 205(2) and 206 the vendors specifically recited in the documents of sale that a right of ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Satyanarayana Vs. Subba Aruna Meenakshi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1074
Rama Jois, J.1. In this matter, which is presented as an appeal against an order of the Family Court, Bangalore, granting interim maintenance to the respondent on an application presented under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the following question of law arises for consideration:'Whether an appeal lies against an order made by the Family Court on an application presented under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act granting interim maintenance under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act?'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow ; A petition presented under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for grant of a decree of divorce against his wife - the respondent, is pending before the Family Court, Bangalore. During the pendency of that petition, the respondent made an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for grant of alimony pendente lite and also to direct the appellant to pay the amount required for the legal expenses. The petition was origi...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Secretary Vs. N. Sreedhara Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1911
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. Does a pending suit in a Court in the State of Karnataka, wherein the claims are that the plaintiff is a civil servant of the Government of Karnataka and that the Karnataka Government should be directed to retire and relieve the plaintiff from its service and give him the benefits of his Government service, stand transferred under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Central Act') on the establishment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') under that Act, is a question which arises for decision in this civil revision petition.2. The respondent here was the plaintiff in a suit, O.S. No. 71/85, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Harihar. The plaintiff claimed in that suit a declaration that he was a servant of the Government of Karnataka and that he should be retired by the Karnataka Government from its service and given the benefits of his service. The plaintiff's claim for the declaration that he w...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Fabrics Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR90; 1988(3)KarLJ287
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:'The petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order in the nature of Writ of certiorari, quashing the orders of the third respondent as contained in Annexures K and L, that of respondent-2 as contained in Annexure-M and that of respondent-3 as per Annexure-N or alternatively by issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to hear the appeal without insisting on the production of Bank guarantee and dispose of the appeal on merits.The petitioner also prays that this Hon'ble Court may please to stay the operation of the order No. 5/1/85/ECA/Bangalore/1104 dated 9-8-1985 passed by the third respondent and order No. 11/189/ACC/ECA III 530 dated 31-10-1985, pursuant to which warrant of attachment has been issued as per Annexure-O.The petitioner further prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to gra...
Tag this Judgment!Choma Naika Vs. Rama Naika
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1902; 1988(3)KarLJ241
Shyamasundar, J.1. This Miscellaneous second appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 68 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Puttur, who had earlier secured a decree at the hands of the Munsiff at Puttur, awarding to him a decree as prayed for after treating the defendant in the suit as not a debtor under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act ('Act' for short). The aggrieved defendant preferred an appeal to the Civil Judge, Puttur in R.A. No. 26 of 1984 and succeeded in getting the Judgment and decree of the Munsiff, reversed, buttressed with a further direction to the Munsiff to dispose off the suit again in conformity with the directions made by the Civil Judge.2. What the learned Civil Judge, did was to set-aside the judgment and decree of the Munsiff and to remit the entire case back to him for disposal of the case on all the issues with a specific direction to the Munsiff to try and dispose of the issue relating to the status of the defendant as a 'Debtor' under the Act, as a prel...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2598
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Though this petition is posted for preliminary hearing, as the learned Government Pleader has entered appearance on behalf of respondents and as the matter lies in a very narrow compass, rule is issued and it is taken up for final disposal.2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 2-7-1986 passed by the Sub-Registrar, Belur Taluk, produced as Annexure-C and also the Order dated 9-2-1987 passed by the District Registrar in Reg.No. 86-87 produced as Annexure-D.3. By the first order the Sub-Registrar has refused to register the document dated 26-12-1985 on the ground that it violates the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Annexure-B is the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the order of the Sub-Registrar. The document is a deed of relinquishment...
Tag this Judgment!Kenchawwa Vs. Amagonda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1185; 1988(1)KarLJ530
Bopanna, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No. 20 of 1975 dismissing the suit filed against defendants 1 and 2 for a declaration that the sale deed dated 4-10-1969 executed by her and defendant-2 in respect of the suit land in favour of defendant-1 is null and void and not binding on her and for other consequential reliefs.2. The case of the plaintiff shortly put before the trial Court is that the suit Schedule land was 'Sthridhana land' and she, having inherited it from her parents, was the exclusive owner of the said land. This is also evidenced by mutation entry Nos.1, 2 and 7 of Hanchinal village. This land was mortgaged with possession under a registered mortgage deed dated 11-4-1966 to one Bagawan for a sum of Rs. 600/- and that mortgage was redeemed under a redemption deed dated 2-5-1968 and thus she obtained possession of the suit land. After taking possession, she was in enjoyment of the suit land till about the year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Sethuraman Vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2298
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. These two Writ Petitions coming up for preliminary hearing are disposed of by a common order after hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties.2. These Writ Petitions are directed against the order passed by the 2nd respondent who is the Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore, returning the application dated 3-7-1987 relating to vehicle No. MEA 4676 and also the applications dated 3-7-1987 pertaining to vehicle Nos. MEN 6616 and MEV 4446.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :- In W.P. No. 2482 of 1988, the petitioner is an operator of Luxury Tourist Taxi Cab carrying on business of transport at Bangalore. He sought for grant of Luxury Tourist Taxi Cab permit on the Inter-state route to ply in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu by his application dated 3-7-1987 in the lapsed vacancy of permit No. P.Co.P. No. 7/81 covered by vehicle MEA 4676. The vacancy was caused on account of the failure of the Permit Holder to apply for renewal of th...
Tag this Judgment!N. Venkatachalapathy Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1261
ORDER1. Rule nisi. 2. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposed of by this order. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inclusion of his name in the list of habitual offenders prepared and maintained by respondent-2 on the recommendation of respondent-3. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner, who is an agriculturist, is a resident of Pavagada Town, Tumkur District. According to him, respondent-3, who is a Police Sub-Inspector, wilfully initiated criminal proceedings on one pretext or the other against the petitioner in order to please a person named Hanumanthrayappa. With this end in view, respondent-3 foisted two petty cases in C.C. No. 146 of 1985 and C.C. No. 168 of 1986 before the Munsiff-Magistrate, Pavagada. In both the cases, the petitioner was acquitted on merits. According to the petitioner, one more petty case is pending against him and that also was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »