Karnataka Court April 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.
Sri Visalam Chit Fund Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas203(Kar)
Bopanna, J.1. The constitutional validity of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Act NO. 40 of 1982) (in short 'the Act'), is challenged in this batch of writ petitions. 2. In writ petition No. 17110 of 1984, the petitioner is a chit fund company registered in Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act. But, it is carrying on business in Banglore through through its branch office. The business in Banglore is part of the total business carried on in Tamil Nadu and no separate balance sheet or audit report for the Banglore branch is prepared and drawn up for the purpose of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. The petitioner in writ Petition No. 8744 of 1986 is a registered partnership firm and it has averred that its main object is to promote the business to chit for the benefit of the common people. All the members of the partnership firm are alleged to be financially sound with good financial background and necessary experience in chit fund business. 4. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15062 of 19...
Sri Visalarn Chit Fund Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India, New Delhi and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant125; ILR1988KAR1518
Bopanna, J.1. Constitutional validity of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 (Act No. 40 of 1982) (in short the Act) is challenged in this batch of writ petitions.2. In Writ Petition No. 17110 of 1984 the petitioner is a Chit Fund Company registered in Tamil Nadu under the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act. But, it is carrying on the business in Bangalore through its branch office. The business in Bangalore is part of the total business carried on in Tamil Nadu and no separate balance sheet or audit report for the Bangalore branch is prepared and drawn up for the purpose of the Companies Act, 1956.2. 1. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8744 of 1986 is a registered partnership firm and it has averred that its main object is to promote the business of chit for the benefit of the common people. All the members of the partnership firm are alleged to be financially sound with good financial background and necessary experience in the Chit Fund business.2.2. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15062 of 1985 is a pri...
Bharat Textile and Proofing Industries and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC10(Kar)
ORDER1. The above writ petitions and revision petitions are disposed of by a common order since a common point arises for consideration in all these petitions. 2. In the writ petitions, we are concerned with the question whether tarpaulin cloth comes within the meaning of the word 'cotton textiles'. In the sales tax revision petitions, we are concerned with the question whether P.V.C. rexine cloth comes within the meaning of the word 'cotton textiles'. 3. The facts are not in serious controversy and briefly stated are : The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11213 to 11221 of 1987 are registered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.S.T. Act'). Some of them are manufacturers and some of them are traders in tarpaulins. It is not in dispute that tarpaulin is manufactured out of cotton fabric. Likewise, the petitioners in the revision petitions are dealers in P.V.C. rexine cloth. Cotton fabrics are declared goods under s...
Hotel Nataraj and Others Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas685(Kar)
P.K. Shyamasundar, J. 1. These appeals arise under section 32(9) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter called 'the Act'), and are directed against the order made by the learned District Judge, Belgaum, in Miscellaneous Cases Nos.83 and 85 of 1978 in E.P. Case No. 2 of 1978 on the file of that court on September 11, 1984, rejecting both the petitions made by the appellants herein under order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the auction sale of immovable properties belonging to the appellant, pursuant to orders of the court made in the execution case referred to supra. 2. The auction sale in question was held on June 15, 1978, and thereat the second respondent, who is the same contesting respondent in both these appeals was the successful bidder having offered the highest bid of Rs.4,25,000. The court below having since refused to set aside that auction sale, the same has resulted in turn in the dismissal of the application made by the appell...
Subramanyam and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC37(Kar)
ORDERP.P. Bopanna, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioner which is a registered partnership firm, has challenged the validity of the proposition notices issued by the second respondent for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 (in short 'the Act'). 2. By the said notices, the second respondent has called upon the petitioner to register itself as a dealer under section 4 of the Act and to file the necessary returns. If the petitioner were to comply with these notices, it would be liable to pay entry tax as stipulated in the said notices. That is why the petitioner has approached this Court directly under article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the said notices on the ground that the second respondent acted wholly without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notices since the goods in question, which were admit...
Hotel Nataraj and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant90; ILR1988KAR2236
1. These appeals arise under S. 32(9) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter called the 'Act') and are directed against the order made by the learned District Judge, Belgaum, in Misc. Cases Nos. 83 and 85 of 1978 in E.P. Case No. 2 of 1978 on the file of that Court on the 1lth Sept., 1984 rejecting both the petitions made by the appellants herein under O. 21, R. 90, C.P.C. for setting aside the auction sale of immoveable properties belonging to the appellant, pursuant to orders of the Court made in the execution case referred to supra.2. The auction sale in question was held on 15-6-1978 and thereat the 2nd respondent, who is the same contesting respondent in both these appeals was the successful bidder having offered the highest bid of Rs. 4,25,000/-. The Court below having since refused to set aside that auction sale the same has resulted in turn in the dismissal of the application made by the appellant, and has further resorted in the confirmation of the sa...
K.T. Venkatappa and ors. Vs. K.N. Krishnappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Kar)162; [1988]173ITR678(KAR); [1988]173ITR678(Karn); 1988(1)KarLJ578
P.P. Bopanna, J.1. These revision petitions are referred to a Division Bench by an order made by Venkatachala J. on July, 19, 1985, in C. R. P. Nos. 3699 and 3700 of 1983. The facts leading to this reference are found in the order of the learned judge and there is no need to repeat them in extenso. 2. The short point for consideration is, whether the provisions of section 53 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957, as substituted by Act No. 29 of 1976, take away the power of the civil court to call for documents, returns and other papers produced by an assessee in the proceedings pending before the authorities constituted under the aforesaid Act. 3. The petitioners are defendants before the trial court and the suit was filed against them by the respondents-plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their share in the family properties. The defence taken by the petitioners before the trial court is that those properties are not joint family properties but that they a...
J.S. Auto Machine Shop Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2510; [1988]70STC321(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The above writ petitions are disposed of finally on merits, after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents at the preliminary stage and after issued rule. 2. The common petitioner in these three writ petitions is a firm. During the years ending Deepavali of 1984, 1985 and 1986, the petitioner purchased and brought into the local area of Davanagere certain industrial machinery for the purpose of job-works, viz., for repairing of machines and re-conditioning of engines in his auto-machine-shop in Davanagere. 3. The 2nd respondent-the Assistant Entry Tax Officer, No. 4, Sub-Circle, Davanagere, issued a proposition-notice in form No. 8 to the petitioner proposing to levy entry tax on the value of the industrial machinery purchased and brought within the local area for use by the petitioner, during the three years in question. 4. The petitioner has challenged these notices on several grounds. The first attack is that the proposed levy is not in conf...
Larry D'Souza Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1060; 1988(3)KarLJ220
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the quashing of the order dated 16th April 1987 of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the KSTAT') made in Appeal No. 776/85, on its file, by issue of a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction.2. Antecedent material facts are: The Regional Transport Authority, Dakshina Kannada (for short 'the RTA') Invited applications under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), respecting grant of a stage carriage permit on a Mangalore City route between Kodikal and State Bank for performing 13 round trips a day. The petitioner and respon-dent-3 were the only contesting rival applicants for grant of that permit before the RTA., which awarded under Rule 104-A (iv)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (for short 'the Rules'), the marks as follows:St. No.Name of the applicantPlace of busine...
Suresh V. Talaraja Vs. Gopal Pundalik Koparge
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2368; 1988(2)KarLJ296
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. At the outset Mr. W.K. Joshi, Counsel for the petitioners prayed for conversion of this petition as CRP. Petitioner has filed a CRP which was withdrawn in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in M.M. YARAGATTI v. VASANTH, : AIR1987Kant186 . The said decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in SHYAMARAJU v. U.V. BHAT, ILR 1987 KAR 3244: AIR 1987 Karnataka 2323; the Supreme Court further approved the earlier Full Bench decision in KRISHNAJI VENKATESH SHIRODKAR v. GURUPAD SHIVARAM KAVLEKAR, ILR (Karnataka) 1978(2) 1985; the resultant position is that a revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against a revisional order of the District Judge under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. In this case, the order challenged is an order of allowing review petition by the District Judge.2. An order granting review application under Rule 4 of Order 47 would be appealable to the Court to which an appeal would He from the decree in the suit as provi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »