Karnataka Court February 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.
Steelwyn Shutters and Engineering Works Vs. Additional Commercial Tax ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)KarLJ359; [1990]79STC322(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajashekara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and his industry is recognised as a tiny section industrial unit as defined in Notification dated March 31, 1983, issued by the Government in exercise of its powers conferred under section 8A(1)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner commenced commercial production on August 29, 1983. To obtain the benefit of the government Notification, the petitioner had to make an application for the said purpose before the assessing authority within three months from the date of the start of his commercial production. 3. On the facts of the present case it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application as required under clause (3) of the notification could not be made earlier since he was not able to obtain necessary certificates from the Department of Industries and Commerce. ...
Subbanna Vs. Kamaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR786
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1980 passed by the learned IVth Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 20/72.2. The following are the suit schedule properties:SCHEDULE :1. Dry land Sy. No. 35/4-5 1/2 guntas in Kethamaranahally, Rajajinagar. Bangalore, bounded on the East by Subbiah and Marappa land ; West by Muniswamapp's land, North by Muniyappa's land and South by peth and SY.NO. 1.2. Tiled roofed house No. 131 in S.No. 34/14 (formerly part of Sy. No. 35/4) of 1 1/2 guntas, Kethamaranahally, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, bounded on the: East by road; West by Marappa and Muniswamappa's houses ; North by Galli and Subbiah's house and South by road;3. Dry land Sy. No. 150/10-17 guntas of land now it is concerned as sites by City Improvements Trust Bangalore as Chord Road, II stage, Kethamaranahally. Rajajinagar, Bangalore and bounded on the: East by Muniswamappa's land. West by Dille Mone Nanjappa's land. North...
Shankarayya Balayya Pujari Vs. Champabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2348; 1988(1)KarLJ321
Hiremath, J.1. Arguments on behalf of the appellants were heard on 5-2-1988 and the respondents' Counsel is heard now. The only point set down as substantial question of law to be decided in this appeal is --'Whether the Courts below were correct in holding that a coparcener cannot gift away the coparcenery property even to the extent of his own share?'The point arises in the following manner :- The plaintiffs being the widow and children of one Shivayya Pujari brought the original suit for partition and possession of their share in as many as four agricultural lands and three house properties. Balayya Pujari - propositor was the father of the said Shivayya and defendant No. 1. Shivayya died in July, 1968. Balayya died on 26-6-69. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and Balayya executed a gift deed in favour of defendants 2 to 4 on 3-6-1969 of four agricultural lands and two houses. They are survey numbers 279/1B, 285/1B, 283/1A and 553/2 and the houses are 72/B and 73 of...
Gopal Purushotham Bichu Vs. Purushotham Govind Bichu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR169; 1988(3)KarLJ1
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 30th August, 1976, passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum in O.S. No. 11 of 1972, dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession.2. The respondents are the defendants. During the pendency of the appeal Defendant No. 1 (Respondent No. 1) and also defendant No. 9 (Respondent No. 9) died. Defendants 2 to 7 are shown as the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant. The legal representatives of Defendant No. 9 are also brought on record. In this Judgment the parties will be referred as the 'plaintiff and 'defendants'.3. The aforesaid suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the 1/8th share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties consist of the following properties:'1. Joint family firm called 'Dnyanaraj Mining Company.'2. The Sarafi shop at Bombay situated at Sardar Graha, Carnic Road, Bombay.3. A Building ...
Gangamma Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR998; 1988(1)KarLJ263
Rama Jois, J.1. These appeals are presented by the appellants against the commonorder of the learned Single Judge made in the Writ Petitions in whichthe acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of a Bus Standby the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation was challenged.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows; A notificationunder Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(in short 'the Act') was issued proposing to acquire the landbelonging to the appellants situate at Sindhanoor Town, RaichurDistrict, for a public purpose, viz., for construction of a Bus Stand,by the K.S.R.T.C. The Preliminary Notification was published in theOfficial Gazette on 10-3-1977. After following the prescribedprocedure under Section 6 of the Act, the final notification wasissued. Questioning the legality of the said acquisition, theappellants preferred the Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions weredismissed, by a common order made by the learned Single Judge on24-10-1...
Gangamma Vs. Kundalapady Venkappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1480
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of I.A. No. IV filed in. LRAA. No. 35-77-78 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Kodagu, wherein the petitioner had prayed for issue of summons to the village accountant of Peraje village to produce the original RTC register and to speak about the entries made therein etc- The Appellate Authority observed that the petitioner has not explained as to why she did not summon the village accountant and the RTC book before the Tribunal. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order rejecting her I.A. No. II.2. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that a single revision petition challenging the orders on I.A. Nos.ll and IV is not maintainable and there ought to have been two revision petitions. This is a technical plea. The trial Court has passed a common order on I.A. Nos.2 and 4. The revisional power of this Court is under Section 121A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, wherein this Court may suo motu ...
Narayan Mukund Shet Vs. Narayan Nagesh Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3035
Hiremath, J.1. The plaintiffs sued defendants 1 to 3 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession of three items of properties namely Survey No. 40/1, Survey No. 40/2 and Survey No. 40/3 of Kattinahakkal village of Ankola taluk of Uttar Kannada District. While plaintiff-1 claims to be in possession of Survey Nos. 40/1 and 40/3 by virtue of a grant, plaintiff-2 claims to be in possession of Survey No. 40/2, though unauthorisedly that being the Government waste land. However, defendant-1, the present first respondent, filed O.S.83 of 1967 for permanent injunction against them in respect of the same properties and obtained temporary injunction against them on 20-5-1967. This was challenged in a miscellaneous appeal and ultimately the miscellaneous appeal came to be dismissed.2. Thereafter defendant-1 initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by applying to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction alleging interfe...
United Breweries Vs. D.C. Srinivasa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3117; 1989(1)KarLJ18
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 16-12-1987 passed by the learned 18th Additional City Judge, Bangalore City in O.S.No. 10630/1981. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 46,405-69 ps. inclusive of interest being the balance due in respect of supply of beer by the plaintiff to the defendants. In this Judgment, the appellant and the respondents will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants respectively.2. According to the case of the plaintiff, beer was last supplied by it to the defendants on 23-5-1978 and thereafter the defendants paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- on 21-12-1978 acknowledging the amount due by them to the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit filed on 7-12-1981 was quite well in time.3. Defendants pleaded that they had discharged the entire claim long back and there was nothing due by them to the plaintiff and that the suit was barred by time as the same had not been filed within 3 years from the date of last...
H.S. Prakash and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Kant211; ILR1988KAR619; 1988(1)KarLJ416
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Writ Appeal is by respondents 3 to 4 in the writ petition filed by M/s. H. Abdul Rahim and H. H. Devaraj. They challenged the State Governments notification dt. 22-8-1987 purportedly exercised under S. 42(12) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ('the Ace for short), appointing the appellants to perform all the duties and exercise all the powers of President and Vice-President of City Municipal Council, Hassan, respectively till 31-12-1987 (This period is stated to have been, now extended till the end of August 1988). The writ petitioners also sought a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to hold the 1 elections to elect President and Vice-President, under the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The writ petition1was allowed by the learned-single judge. Hence this appeal. 2. The relevant facts, stated in the order of the learned single Judge may be repeated once again, since they represent the undisputed facts: 'The 1st petitioner is the Municipal co...
Dr. (Mrs) Sita Bhateja's Nursing Home Vs. District Judge
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR779; 1988(1)KarLJ366
Rama Jois, J.1. This writ appeal is presented against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition presented by the appellants, on the ground that a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC lies to this Court against the order made by the District Court Bangalore.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The first appellant is a Nursing Home and according to the appellants it is a charitable institution. The appellants were aggrieved by the levy of property tax to the buildings belonging to the first appellant. The building is situated within the City of Bangalore and is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 (for short the Act). Section 110 of the Act, grants general exemption from the property tax. Clause (c) thereof exempts the charitable hospitals, and dispensaries from payment of property tax. As property tax were levied on the hospital building belonging to the first-appellant an appeal was preferred before ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »