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.
Basha Baig Vs. Choodanath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1632
ORDERPatil, J.1. This revision filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is directed against the order of eviction dated 31-1-1983 passed by the 19th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City.2. Premises bearing Nos.1 & 2 situated at Chinnappa Garden, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore, more particularly described in the schedule to the original petition is the subject of dispute. It belongs to the family of Respondents-1, 2 & 3, who are related among themselves as full brothers. C.H. Keerti Sunder and C.H. Lokanath are their other two brothers. When the family was still joint, Keerti Sunder, as Karta of joint family, leased the said premises (open site) under a registered lease deed dated 20-9-1965 (Ex.P-1) in favour of S.K. Khader Sheriff, original respondent-1, since deceased whose legal representatives have been arrayed as respondents in this revision, on a monthly rent of Rs. 275/- for a period of five years commencing f...
Thimmamma Vs. Siddarangaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1919
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Mr. Viswanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner-owner, very vehemently argued that the evidence of the petitioner's daughter should have been considered by the Appellate Authority in the light of the entries made in the Record of Rights. According to the learned Counsel, since the first respondent has not cross-examined the said witness, the statement in the said deposition should have been accepted as proved.2. In W.P. No. 8230/79 this Court had remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal on the ground that the first respondent herein had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness examined on behalf of the present petitioner-owner. After the remand once again the Land Tribunal considered the matter and by a cryptic order dated 25-6-1982 allowed the application of the first respondent. This order was again challenged and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority by this Court, on the constitution of the Appellate Authority.3. Before the Appell...
Shri Balaji Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Ashok Kavle and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas654(Kar); ILR1988KAR1213; 1988(2)KarLJ50
Bopanna, J.1. This appeal arises against the order of the learned company judge in Company Petition No. 8 of 1982, on a preliminary objection raised by the appellants based on the provisions of section 41 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The parties are referred to in this appeal by the position assigned to them in the company petition. 2. The petitioners who are shareholders of respondent No. 1-company had filed a petition under the provisions of sections 397 and 398 of the Act against respondent No. 1, the company had respondent No. 2, the ex-director of the first respondent-company. The Registrar of Companies and also the chartered accountants, Messrs M. R. Narayan and Company, were arrayed as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in view of certain allegation made against them by the petitioners. It is not necessary to go into the various acts of oppression and mismanagement alleged by the petitioners in the company petition since they are not the subject-matter for considerati...
Chandrasekhar Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1783
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. The petitioner, who is a stage carriage operator operating about 16 services covering the portion of the route between Mangalore and Udupi and other places, has challenged the grant of temporary permit in favour of respondent-2 who is the Proprietor of Ambica Motors, Mangalore.2. The important questions of law which arise for consideration are :(1) Whether Rule 92 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 read with Section 62(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 dispenses with the duty to assign reasons for grant of a temporary permit?(2) Whether a temporary permit can be granted when the vehicle is already covered by a regular permit in respect of the same route or in respect of substantially the same route?3. The material facts emerging from the case are these :Respondent-2 applied for grant of a temporary permit for the route Kankanady to Malpe via Surathkal, Mulky, and Udupi for the period commencing from 7-12-1987 and expiring on 31-3-1988. Respondent-1, who...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Latha D. Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: [1989]179ITR249(KAR); [1989]179ITR249(Karn)
Rama Jois, J.1. These references are made at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka-II, Bangalore, by the Tribunal under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). 2. The questions referred for the opinion of this court are : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in valuing the assets held by the assessee in Bharat Bidi Works Pvt. Ltd., the amount representing the advance income-tax paid by the company should not be deducted from the amount representing the provision of taxation for the assessment year 1973-74, on a proper interpretation of rule 1 D of the Wealth-tax Rules, read with the Explanation II(ii)(e) of the Wealth-tax Rules (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of the National Defence Certificates for Rs. 70,000 held by the assessee was exempt under section 5(1) read with section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1973-74 ?' 3. As far as the first qu...
Jai Bharat Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Kar)130; ILR1988KAR2705; [1988]173ITR132(KAR); [1988]173ITR132(Karn); 1988(2)KarLJ144
1. In these four petitions presented by M/s. Jai Bharat Enterprises, Bangalore, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether an application for reference under section 256(2) of the Act lies in respect of an order made by the Appellate Tribunal rejecting an application made before it under sub-section (2) of section 254 of the Act ?' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : For the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81, the assessee claimed relief under section 35B(1)(b) of the Act in respect of certain expenses incurred. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction since it had sold all goods to MMTC which in turn exported the goods. It was further held that as all the expenses which fell under sub-clause (iii) of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act were incurred in India, the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction. 3. On appeal, for the asse...
Mysore Cements Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC385; 1989(22)LC147(Karnataka); 1988(37)ELT556(Kar); ILR1988KAR2711; 1988(2)KarLJ27
Rama Jois, J.1. In this writ petition presented by M/s. Mysore Cements Ltd., the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the packing charges relating to the port land cement manufactured by the petitioner is liable to excise duty under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.' 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was amended in the year 1973. The relevant part of Section 4 of the Act, after its amendment, reads : * * * * * * According to clause (4)(d)(i) of Section 4 of the Act generally the cost of packing is to be taken into account while computing the cost of the goods at the stage of manufacture and levy of excise duty. But there is an exception. The exception is, the cost of packing should not be included for levying excise duty if (i) packing material is of a durable nature, and (ii) it is returnable by the buyer to the assessee. 3. After this...
Hussenabi and ors. Vs. Husensab Hasan Sab and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant218
1. The above Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., Dharwad, in R.A. No. 58 of 1976 on 18-7-1979 partly allowing the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, NavaIgund, in O.S. No. 88 of 1973 on 22-9-1976.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are :That the plaintiff had filed a suit for a decree that the gift deed dated 29-5-1972 and the Mahar deed dt. 8-8-1952 are hollow, fraudulent and illegal and as such, not binding on the plaintiff's share and the sale transaction dt. 8-10-1955 in respect of the suit land is a benami and as such, she is not the real owner and for partition and actual possession of Plaintiff's 9/32nd share by metes and bounds and if the partition by metes and bounds is felt not possible, the plaintiff be awarded equitable partition and for delivery of possession of 9/32nd share in the suit properties with Court costs.3. The defendants filed their written statement inter alia contending that ...
R.V. Patil Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR829; 1988(1)KarLJ370
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Constitutional validity of Section 30A(1A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short) and the order appointing a Special Officer to the Malaprabha Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Saundatti (referred as 'the Society' hereinafter) are challenged in these two Writ Petitions, referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge. Writ Petitions are filed by 9 of the Directors of the Society in all.2. The Society is stated to be a 'Major Class' Agricultural Produce Co-operative Society, with a vast area of operation. One of its objects is to purchase cotton from grower members and others. Its authorised share capital is Rs. 4 crores and fifty lakhs. The Board of Directors consist of 17 Directors elected by 'A' Class members. Directors nominated by the State Government, of whom one is its Managing Director and one Director is the nominee of a Financing Agency.3. The Society/Mill is being assisted under NCDC-III Project under th...
Mysore Feeds Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR889; 1988(1)KarLJ310
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Petitioner challenges the validity of notification Annexure-Ewhereby the Special Deputy Commissioner declared certain lands to vestin the State Government under Section 79B of the Karnataka LandReforms Act. Petitioner firm was incorporated under the IndianCompanies Act in the year 1963 and has been carrying on themanufacture of cattle feed, poultry feed and pig feed in its factoryat Pantharapalya village, Bangalore South Taluk. To expand itsactivities, it purchased about six acres 19 guntas of agriculturallands which were adjacent to its factory under a sale deed dated17-1-1973 out of which, about 19.15 1/4 guntas are stated to have beenacquired from it by the Water Board.2. In August 1973, petitioner applied under Section 95(2) of theKarnataka Land Revenue Act, seeking permission to divert the user ofthese lands for non-agricultural purposes. The papers seem to havebeen returned and a fresh application was filed by the petitioner on30-6-1975. By an order d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »