Karnataka Court March 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.
Pierce Leslie India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Kar)183; [1988]174ITR626(KAR); [1988]174ITR626(Karn); 1988(2)KarLJ147
Rama Jois, J.1. This application is presented under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the order of this court passed in I.T.R.C. No. 216 of 1984 (Pierce Lesile India Ltd. v. CIT : [1988]174ITR623(KAR) and to pass a fresh order after hearing the matter afresh. 2. The following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether this court has got any inherent power to entertain an application praying for setting aside an order made in a reference under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the order made was palpably erroneous or had resulted in miscarriage of justice and to set aside the order if it is found to be so and to pass an order in accordance with law ?' 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, made a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, referring the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Valliappa Textiles Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Kar)179; [1988]172ITR168(KAR); [1988]172ITR168(Karn); [1988]40TAXMAN55(Kar)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This is a reference made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the following two questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for the purpose of giving set off of development rebate relating to earlier assessment years against the profits of the assessment year 1974-75, such development rebate should be redetermined according to the appropriate rates applicable to a priority industry (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that even though such development rebate had been determined at lower rates in the earlier years, it should be redetermined at the higher rate applicable to a priority industry, though the time for rectification of the mistake under section 154 has expired ?' 2. Brief facts of the case, as are available in the records, are as follows : 3. For the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer accepted...
Jayashankara Gowda Vs. Chief Secretary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1005
ORDERBopanna, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is challenged by the petitioners on various grounds. Principally their challenge is premised on the ground of violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, Additionally they have submitted that the Act offends the basic structure of the Constitution and therefore should be declared as void. Briefly stated, their arguments are that in the absence of any party system in the Constitution, the Act is violative of the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India; that the defection of an individual is sought to be penalised whereas the defection of a group of individuals is legalised and thereby there has been discrimination which violates their rights, protected under Article 14 of the Constitution; that Sections 3 and 4 of the Act should be read as a wh...
Panduranga Mallya Vs. Vamana Mallya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1747
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by defendant No. 3 against the order dated 21-8-1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in FDP 45/78 in O.S. 71/75 calling upon the petitioner (defendant No. 3) to produce the non-judicial stamp paper to execute the sale certificate in respect of the sale conducted by the Court Commissioner as per the orders of the Court.2. The present revision petitioner was held entitled to 9/48 share in the properties. The property in question was a godown property and incapable of division. Therefore, the Court ordered the sale of the property between the share holders themselves and it appointed a Commissioner for conducting the sale between co-sharers The sale was held by the Court Commissioner. The highest bid was for Rs.2,70,000/-. The present petitioner was the highest bidder. According to the petitioner, he deposited the entire amount of Rs.2,70,000/- and he filed an application (I.A.37) for payment of his share of the money in deposit. The Court, whi...
U.R. Narashimha Murthy Vs. Madhava Tenkillaya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1840; 1988(3)KarLJ478
ORDER 18 RULES 17 & 17A - Purport - Powers under Rule 17 very wide - Court can recall witness to avoid ambiguity or omission in Judgment suo motu or at the instance of a party - Rule 17A applicable when party satisfies the Court that after exercise of due diligence, evidence not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time of his evidence.Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P. Code no doubt empowers the Court to recall at any time a witness who has been examined and cross-examined, The powers under the said Rule are very wide. The Court can recall a witness to avoid any ambiguity or omission in its Judgment. The power can be exercised suo motu or at the instance of a party.....Under Rule 17A, where a party satisfies the Court that after exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or it could not be produced by him at the time when the party was leading his evidence, the Court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as ma...
Mrs. Sushila A. Dass Vs. Mrs. Mary Boiger
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1413; 1988(1)KarLJ563
Bopanna, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S. No. 216/85 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract entered into between the parties in respect of the sale of land measuring about 12 acres situate in Kogilu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.2. The facts are not in serious controversy since the sale agreement between the parties is not disputed and the subsequent agreement in the form Of a receipt modifying the earlier agreement is also not in dispute. The only plea raised in this appeal is that the trial Court was in error in exercising the discretion in favour of the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short the 'Act').3. The parties are no strangers to each other. The plaintiff a Foreign National appears to have met the defendant earlier in Coonoor and after personal discussions it was agreed that the defendant would sell the suit prope...
B.T. Subbarangayya Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2179; 1988(1)KarLJ387
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition coming up for orders today, by consent of the Counsel for all the parties, arguments were heard.2. This is a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to give effect to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, providing reservation for the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and for women in the proposed election to the Managing Committee of the third respondent society.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner is a shareholder of the third respondent-society and the Society consists of Managing Committee of 12 members. The State Government incorporated Section 28-A by an Amendment Act called Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1984, into the Act and the same provides for reservation of seats for the Scheduled - Castes, Scheduled Tribes and for Women. The second respondent who is the Assis...
S.V. Shastri Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1770; 1988(1)KarLJ408
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions are the licensees of one or the other premises situated in several of the bus stands of the 1st respondent - hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'. Some of them are running book-stalls, some are running pan-beeda shops and some are running canteens. The period of. licence held by each of them had not expired as on 8-4-1986. The licences pertaining to the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 1752, 1753 and 1759 of 1988 are extended by one year after the expiry of three years.2. In all these petitions, the contention of the petitioners is that as per the General Standing Order No. 342 dated 8-4-1986, bearing No. KST. CO.TR.COM.RR. GEN/350, the licences held by them are required to be extended by a period of two years after the expiry of three years by extending the licences one year at a time on payment of 10% more than the previous licence fee.3. On the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the General Standin...
Ramachandra Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2425
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, who is a driver possessing a driving licence bearing No. 92/1987 which is valid from 6-3-1987 to 5-3-1990 authorised to ply an Autorickshaw Cab, has challenged condition Nos.1 to 6 which are specified in the Notification dated 11-11-1987 vide Annexure-A issued by the respondent and also the Resolution of the respondent passed in subject matter No. 462/87-88 vide Annexure-R1, insisting upon certain requirements to be complied with by the petitioner for being granted a contract carriage permit in respect of an Autorickshaw.2. The material facts of the case are these:The petitioner purchased an Autorickshaw Cab bearing Registration No. MED 1836, the model of the vehicle being 1977. A Fitness Certificate was issued by the transport authorities on 3-1-1987 and the same was valid upto 2-1 -1988. It is submitted by the petitioner that taxes have been paid upto 31-12-1987 and that the said vehicle was being operated by the petitione...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaya Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Kar)16; [1989]175ITR611(KAR); [1989]175ITR611(Karn)
Rajendra Babu, J.1. In this reference, two questions have been referred to us for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, and they are as under : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,73,494 is not liable to be included in the computation of chargeable interest (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy received by the applicant from the Reserve Bank of India in respect of export credit made available by it to its constituents, would fall under the definition of interest under section 2(7) of the interest-tax Act, 1974, and as such could be included in the chargeable interest under section 5 ?' 2. The first question is referred at the instance of the Revenue and the second question is referred at the instance of the assessee. So far as the answer to the first question is concerne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »