Karnataka Court July 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.
Bangalore Horticultural Producers Marketing and Processing Co-operativ ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1988
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas707(Kar); 1988(2)KarLJ217
1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Bangalore Horticultural Producers Marketing and Processing Co-operative Society Ltd., challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in revision petition No. 66 of 1987, disposed of on January 27, 1988. 2. Apart from the delay in approaching this court for relief, one is surprised that the petitioner has approached this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India at all. 3. The facts leading to the writ petition may be stated and they are as follows: 4. The 3rd respondent raised a dispute which came to be referred to the 1st respondent. The substance of the dispute was that the petitioner-co- operative society owned certain sums of money to the 3rd respondent (before the arbitrator), the 1st respondent in this court. Certain documents which included the resolution book and account books were directed to be produced before the arbitrator. Against that order of the ...
Sahyadri Education Trust Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2188; 1988(3)KarLJ266
ORDERBopanna, J.1. In these Writ Petitions, an important but difficult question on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of the Grant -in-Aid Code for Primary Schools framed by the Department of Education, Government of Karnataka (in short the Code) arise for consideration. Since common questions of law a rise for my consideration, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 18313 of 1987 is a registered Trust registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. It is running a Kannada Medium Primary School and necessary permission has been obtained by it from the Government for running the aforesaid school in Kannada Medium. Having obtained such permission from the Government, this Court could proceed on the premise that the petitioner has fulfilled all the necessary conditions for locating a primary school as required under the relevant provisions of the Code. Sometime in th...
Sri Kottureswara Rice and Oil Mills and anr. Vs. the State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC356(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioners are registered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (the Act). For the period ending 31st March, 1979, they filed returns disclosing the gross and taxable turnover in form No. 4. The notices issued under section 28(1) of the Act by the second respondent calling upon the petitioners to produce the books of accounts for the said period, are challenged in these writ petitions. 2. Under rule 26(10) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, the dealers registered under the Act are required to preserve all the accounts maintained by them together with all vouchers, declarations, way-bills, etc., for a period of 5 years after the close of the year to which they relate. This rule was amended with effect from 1st April, 1986 by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1986. The effect of the amendment is, the five years period mentioned in the said rule has been substituted with the following words 'till the assessment for the year to which they...
Babulal Vaktaji Shah and anr. Vs. Chandabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant221; ILR1988KAR2437; 1988(3)KarLJ588
1. This appeal is by the defendant in O.S. No. 11/1964 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum and is directed against the said concurrent judgments and decrees of both the Courts- below, i.e., O.S. No,11/64 subsequent affirmed by the Additional District,Judge of Belgaum in R.A. No. 10/1973, granting the plaintiff in the suit who is the,respondent herein a decree enabling the decree for rendition of accounts of a firm M/s.Shah Vaktaji Dalkhand and Compnay, Gokak which her husband Dalichand was a partners during his lifetime. The correctness and the legality of the above said decree is challenged herein, on the very short ground that the plaintiff's suit was barred by time as on the date, it was instituted. Regrettably the respondent who is the plaintiff in the Court below a lady by name Chandabai, unrepresented in this Court despite of service of notice on her. I have to mention, at the outset that she was represented by an advocate of this Court Sri Jestamal, who subsequentl...
Koripalli Vijayalakshmi Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR3401; 1988(2)KarLJ282
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. In these batch of cases, the petitioners who are the owners of several survey numbers referred to in the defaulter notices, served on each one of them under Rule 112 of the Land Revenue Rules, have challenged the demand notices. The demands represent the penal water rate levied both under Section 28(5) and Section 32(4) of the Karnataka irrigation Act ('the Act'). Though consolidated demands are made as per the notices, they comprise of the penal water rate levied both for unauthorised user of the water which attracts penalty under Section 28(5) and for unauthorised cultivation of crops which attracts penalty under Section 32(4) of the Act.2. The original records of these cases are produced by the learned Govt. Pleader. The recoveries are in respect of the years 1980 to 1987. The Irrigation Officers concerned in these cases are present before the Court, when asked to produce the notices served on the petitioners some sample notices which are purported to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›