Karnataka Court June 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Diamond Dies Manufacturing Corporation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)71CTR(Kar)189; [1988]172ITR655(KAR); [1988]172ITR655(Karn); 1988(2)KarLJ66
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the subsidy of Rs. 3,30,600 received from the Central Government for setting up industries in backward areas cannot be allocated towards any particular asset or assets and the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the cost of assets as claimed by it ?' 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : 3.During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee received a subsidy of Rs. 3,30,600 from the Central Government for setting up an industrial unit in a backward area. The Income-tax Officer allocated the subsidy between land, building, electrical installations and plant and machinery holding that since it went to reduce the...
Andhra Steel Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karna ... Overruled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1988
Reported in: [1990]78STC234(Kar)
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (referred to as 'the Act' for brevity), purchases iron scrap from dealers inside and outside the State for the purpose of manufacture of iron ingots, steel rounds and to steel which are sold mostly within the State. The Commercial Tax Officer for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75, exempted the sales turnover on the ground that they have been manufactured out of tax-suffered iron scrap. The Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under section 21 of the Act revised the assessment orders and restricted the exemption by his order dated May 11, 1979, passed in S.M.R. 198 to 200/78-79 for years 1972-73 to 1974-75. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes called for the records and issued notice initiating proceedings for revision under section 22A of the Act, of the said order of the Deputy Commissioner dated May 11, 1979, on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had allowed exemption in ...
Mangalore University Non-teaching Employees Association Vs. Mangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1988
Reported in: [1989(58)FLR173]; ILR1988KAR2219; 1988(2)KarLJ239
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. This Writ Petition is by the Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to appoint persons who are members of the Petitioner Association, who were appointed on temporary basis under Section 51B of the Karnataka State Universities Act 1976 (for short the Act) on the establishment of the Mangalore University, on permanent basis against the posts in which they are employed on temporary basis.2. The facts of the ease in brief are as follow. The Mangalore University is established under the provisions of the Act. The powers and functions of the University and of its authorities are regulated by the Act. The Act has prescribed the procedure for making permanent appointments to teaching and non-teaching posts in the Service of the University. Section 49 provides for constitution of a Board for making selection and appointment, to the teaching posts i.e., of Professors, Readers and Lecturers. Prior to ...
Gangamalamma Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)KarLJ285
ORDERRamakrishna, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner at Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively.2. The undisputed facts as disclosed in the averments of the Writ Petition and the impugned orders are that Thimmanna, the 4th respondent was granted 1 acre 23 guntas of land in Survey No. 13/21 situate in HatiKatte Village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District by an order made by the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi dated 30th August 1975 in proceedings No.DAR.179/72-73. The Saguvall chit also came to be issued as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 1-2-1975. By a Registered Sale deed dated 16-2-1976 the petitioner purchased the said land for valuable consideration.After coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978, (the Act for short), the 4th respondent ...
R.Krishna Murthy Vs. Annapurnamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant209; 1988(3)KarLJ185
1. The above Regular Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree made on 28-1-1978, in R.A. No. 10/1976, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, setting aside the Judgment and Decree made on 13-11-1975, in O.S. 65/1972, on the file of the Munsiff, Ramanagaram.2. The facts of the case in brief are: that the plaintiff filed a suit for directing the lest defendant to pay mesne profits from the date of the suit upto the date of delivery of possession in addition to giving him possession. The suit schedule house and shops belonged to one Puttaswamigowda. The plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the said late Puttaswamigowda and wife of M. P. Somanna, who is deceased. The plaintiff and her deceased daughter Chandramma executed a release deed dt. 20-6-1959, wherein,' the suit schedule property along with-other properties were taken by the plaintiff and her minor daughter in lieu of their shares in the family properties. The suit schedule property was mortgaged with possession b...
H. Kenche Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka (Joint Commissioner of Agrl. In ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1687
Rajendra Babu, J.1. These petitions are filed under section 55 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short), against the order dated June 9, 1986, purporting to revise the assessment orders passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 in respect of one Kenche Gowda and the assessment order against the other coparceners of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family (HUF). 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 3. Kenche Gowda, his two sons, Makappa and Kumar, constituted a Hindu undivided family which was assessed in that status up to the year 1977-78. The Hindu undivided family became divided and properties partitioned by metes and bounds on March 15, 1977. The Assessing Officer accepted the said partition and for the years 1978-79 and 1980-81, the divided coparceners filed separate returns which included their share in 'Coffee back pool payments', relating to coffee crop supplied by the erstwhile Hindu und...
H. Kenche Gowda Vs. State of KarnatakA. (Joint Commissioner of Agrl. I ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)75CTR(Kar)85; [1988]174ITR389(KAR); [1988]174ITR389(Karn)
RAJENDRA BABU J. - These petitions are filed under section 55 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short), against the order dated June 9, 1986, purporting to revise the assessment orders passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 in respect of one Kenche Gowda and the assessment order against the other coparceners of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family (HUF).The facts of the case in brief are as follows :Kenche Gowda, his two sons, Makappa and Kumar, constituted a Hindu undivided family which was assessed in that status up to the year 1977-78. The Hindu undivided family became divided and properties partitioned by metes and bounds on March 15, 1977. The Assessing Officer accepted the said partition and for the years 1978-79 and 1980-81, the divided coparceners filed separate returns which included their share in 'Coffee back pool payments', relating to coffee crop supplied by the erstwhile Hindu undivided fa...
G.T. Swamy and anr. Vs. Goodluck Agencies and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1988
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas819(Kar); ILR1988KAR3147
P.P. Bopanna, J.1. The petitioners-directors have filed this application tinder the, provisions of rules 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code, and section 466 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short the Act'), for the following reliefs : 'That this court may be pleased to recall the order dated February 6, 1987, passed by this Hon'ble court in Company Petition No. 47 of 1986 for winding up of the company by name Super Galaxy Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Alternatively, it is prayed that this court may be pleased to permanently stay the winding up order dated February 6, 1987, passed by this court winding up the aforesaid company in Company Petition No. 47 of 1986.' 2. The petitioners are the directors of the company by name Super Galaxy Drugs Pvt. Ltd. (in liquidation). They are also the only two share-holders. This company was ordered to be wound up by this court by its order dated February 6, 1987. It is not in dispute that the official liquidator,...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gowramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1313
Venkatachala, J.1. The first contention urged for the insurer, the common appellant in these appeals, was that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal could not have made the Insurer liable on its policy effected by a 'Cover Note' subsequent to the omission of the words 'or a Cover Note' in Sub-section (4) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by Central Act 100 of 1956. This contention is devoid of merit for the reason to be stated presently.2. The material portion of Sub-section (4), after the omission of the words 'or a Cover Note' found therein, reads thus:'A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the Insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance.....'From a reading of the above sub-section in isolation, one would get an impression that a policy shall have no effect for the purposes of Chapter relating to 'Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks' unless and unti...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. K. Gowramma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1988
Reported in: 2(1988)ACC593
M. Venkatachala, J.1. The first contention urged for the Insurer, the common appellant in these appeals, was that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal could not have made the Insurer liable on its policy effected by a 'Cover Note' subsequent to the omission of the words 'or a Cover Note' in Sub-section (4) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by Central Act 100 of 1956. This contention is devoid of merit for the reason to be stated presently.2. The material portion of Sub-section (4), after the omission of the words 'or a Cover Note' found therein, reads thus:A policy shall be of no effect for the purpose of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the Insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance....3. From a reading of the above Sub-section in isolation, one would get an impression that a policy shall have no effect for the purposes of Chapter relating to 'Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks' unless and un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »