Karnataka Court August 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.
S.S.K.T. Company Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3054
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. The petitioner is a registered Company engaged in the business of transporting goods. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the communication dated 20-6-1986 bearing No. S & C/13(14)/85 Cont. issued by the Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bangalore Annexure-K terminating the contract dated 1-3-1986 at the risk and costs of the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to entrust the work to the petitioner as per the acceptance of tender Annexure-A and a further direction to the respondent not to engage any other contractor/s for the period between 1-3-1986 and 28-2-1988 till which day, the contract awarded to the petitioner will be effective for handling and transporting its foodgrains.2. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application seeking amendment to the Writ Petition. That application was allowed on 16-5-1988. The...
Kasim Peer and Co. Vs. Deputy Transport Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1172; 1988(2)KarLJ410
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. Sri P.R. Ramesh, learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2.2. On 17-12-1987 and again on 19-4-1988 the petitioner's vehicle (Matadar van) bearing Registration No. MYS 9590 (Omnibus) was stated to have been operated on hire basis on Bhadravathi and Sugar Nagar road without permit according to the check report issued by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Shimoga. A show-cause notice was Issued to the petitioner containing the allegations. The said allegations, according to the petitioner, did not amount to an offence entailing suspension of registration certificate. A case was registered before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate (Munsiff and Additional J.M.F.C. Bhadravathi) against the driver of the vehicle and after trial the case was dismissed and the accused acquitted in C.C. No. 4579 of 1987. It is submitted that the complainant in the criminal case was no other than the Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector attached to t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Corporation Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Kar)81; [1988]174ITR616(KAR); [1988]174ITR616(Karn); 1988(3)KarLJ146; [1988]41TAXMAN161(Kar)
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. In these references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following common questions of law for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the interest of Rs. 4,15,343 taken directly to the interest suspense account is not assessable to income-tax 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in approving the system of valuation of stock-in-trade adopted by the assessee for the present assessment ?' 2. In our opinion, the first question is wholly covered by the ruling of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT : [1986]158ITR102(SC) . Accordingly, it is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. 3. The second question relates to the valuation of the stock-in-trade of the banking business of the assessee...
B. Sundara Gowda and Ors. Vs. MartIn D'Souza
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant207; ILR1989KAR1851; 1988(3)KarLJ447
ORDER1. There is a technical error in the impugned order. The revision petitioners who were the plaintiffs in the trial Court are aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, allowing the appeal filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 48/86 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Puttur. The Principal Munsiff, Puttur had declined to pass an order on I.A. II in the said suit holding that the same shall be disposed of along with the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal before the Civil Judge, Puttur. But, however, when the matter was pending before the Civil Judge, Puttur, the case was withdrawn by an order made by the District Judge, Mangalore suomotu and directed to be heard by the Civil Judge, Mangalore. Counsel for defendant- appellant appeared before the transferee Court and the Counsel for plaintiffs-respondents failed to appear. In that circumstance, an order came to be passed remanding the matter to the Munsiff, Puttur directing him to dispose ...
Ningappa Basappa Hullara Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2771; 1988(2)KarLJ416
ORDERBopanna, J.1. In these petitions, the constitutional validity of Rule 2 of the Rules framed under the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (in short the Mandal Panchayats Act) is challenged by the petitioners who are the Members of certain Mandal Panchayats having been elected to the respective Mandal Panchayats in the 1987 elections held under the Mandal Panchayats Act.2. In one of the petitions, the validity of Section 2(2) of the Mandal Panchayats Act is also challenged on the ground that the same confers an arbitrary power on the Government to define what Back-ward Class is. These petitions were followed by a number of petitions by the elected Members of the Zilla Parishads and Mandal Panchayats questioning the right of Adhyaksha to nominate two persons of his choice from the Backward Class in the event of Members from that Class are elected in the Mandal Panchayat elections under Section 5(3) of the Mandal Panch...
Mangalamba Vs. Sulochana Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3374; 1988(3)KarLJ437
Shyamasundar, J.1. Regular Second Appeal 860 of 1978 is by the plaintiff in O.S.210 of 1967, whereas Regular Second Appeals 883 and 964 of 1978 are by the defendants in O.S. 10 of 1970. A common point that arises in these appeals is the question of law touching their right to the suit property being urban property from which the occupants - the defendants are not sought to be dislodged by the plaintiffs.2. The question that arises for consideration in all these appeals is whether having regard to the case of the plaintiffs in all these cases, they ought to have been relegated to proceedings under the Rent Control Act and the Courts should not have investigated the controversy between them in the suits before the Courts below, The point with 3 little ramification and elaboration is as follows :In all these cases, the plaintiffs found their title to the suit properties being threatened in one case namely R.S.A. 860/78 being a house property in K.G.F and in the other case being an open si...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›