Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1989(20)ECC47; 1989(44)ELT456(Kar); ILR1990KAR1441; 1989(1)KarLJ462
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26-8-1988 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent-3 insisting upon the petitioner to clear both the consignments which are in the custody of the respondents if the petitioner wanted to release one of the two consignments for which he had already paid the charge demanded. The petitioner has also questioned the demand made by respondent-4 in its notice dated 15-10-1988 for payment of a total sum of Rs. 8,817.60. 2. It is necessary to set out the material facts of the case : The petitioner is an importer of lining and interlining materials and other garment accessories which are permitted to be imported under the prevailing Import and Export Policy. The petitioner imported 3 consignments of materials covered by 3 separate bills of lading, under licence. The goods arrived at the Inland Container Depot, Bangalore on 15-4-1986. The petitioner filed 3 separate bill of entry before the Assistant Collector of Customs (Respondent-3) according to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1029; 1989(1)KarLJ302
ORDERHakeem, J.1. This Revision by the tenant Is directed against the concurrent findings and orders of the Courts below allowing the landlord's claim for eviction of the tenant on the ground under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. Both the Courts have on proper appreciation of the evidence on records, found that the tenant did not pay or deposit the arrears of rent within two months of the service of notice as contemplated under the law. It is however found that the tenant has paid certain arrears of rents in the Court, during the proceedings.3. Sri K.I. Bhatta, learned Counsel for the tenant submitted that the notice of demand preceding the filing of the petition was not served in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this connection, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in BASHA BAIG v. CHOODANATH. It is not disputed that the notice dated 13-3-1978, issued through registered post was personally served upon the tenant on 20-3-1978. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1989)ACC213; AIR1990Kant136; 1989(1)KarLJ333
ORDER1. Though this petition is posted for orders but both the sides have argued for final disposal, hence it is disposed of by this order.2. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dt. 4th April 1988 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Appeal No. 127/1988 Annexure-B. By the impugned order the Tribunal has set aside the resolution dt. 7-11-1986 passed in Sub. No. 555/86-87 by the Regional Transport Authority, Dakshina Kannada granting a stage carriage permit to the petitioner on the route State Bank to Adyar Launch Jetty Via .Tyothi Kadri Kanthoor Maroli Padil 10 R. Ts as per the timings notified.3. Having regard to the contentions urged on both sides the point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Tribunal reversing the resolution of the R.T.A. and gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1239; (1989)IILLJ192Kant
ORDER1. In view of the fact that these petitions can be disposed of on a short point the same are taken up for final hearing. 2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of I Grade Revenue Inspectors in accordance with law and if found eligible to promote them from the date of placing them in additional charge and give all consequential benefits from 6th March 1980 and 19th March 1980 respectively. 3. It is not in dispute that in accordance with the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of Bangalore City Corporation of the year 1971, a post of I Grade Revenue Inspector has to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of II Grade Revenue Inspectors. The petitioners in W.Ps. 12393 to 12397 and 12400 were placed in additional charge of the post of I Grade Revenue Inspectors on 6th March 1980 as per Annexure-A. The petitioners in W.Ps. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR1651; 1989(3)KarLJ609
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 23-3-1981 passed by the 2nd respondent in Case No. KCC(A) Comp. 40/1980-81 Annexure-B in so far it relates to the rate of interest on the sums paid and payable by the 4th respondent to the Bank. The petitioner has also sought for the Issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents-1 to 3 to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 22,229-75 or such other sum as the Court deems fit, within a date fixed by this Court in the circumstances of the case.2. The 4th respondent was the owner of the contract carriage vehicle bearing Reg. No. MYA 6149. On the security of the vehicle, the petitioner had advanced certain sum to the 4th respondent. When the amount advanced had still remained to be paid, the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') came into force on 30-1-1976. As a result of the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1993]202ITR301(KAR); [1993]202ITR301(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question is referred for our opinion : 'Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the entire cinema theatre comprising each and every part of the theatre, whether it is within the auditorium portion of it or outside it, including false ceilings and wooden panelling of the auditorium, rolling shutters, fountain, mirrors, furniture and fixtures, etc., outside the auditorium is 'plant' for the purposes of the Act and that only certain parts of the theatre are plant ?' 2. The Tribunal, in this case, following its earlier decision in the case of Santosh Enterprises, remitted the matter to the Income-tax Officer to redetermine the depreciation admissible to the assessee. Against the order made in Santosh Enterprises' case, reference was made to this court in I. T. R. C. Nos. 184 to 187 of 1982 (Santosh Enterprises v. CIT : [1993]200ITR353(KAR) ) and, in those cases also, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant317; ILR1989KAR819; 1989(1)KarLJ223
ORDERM. P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal directed against the Judgment and decree dated 31-7-1987 of the XII Additional City Civil Judge of Bangalore, passed in O.S. No. 858 of 1980 on his file coming up for admission after notice is disposed of by the following judgment.2. The brief facts necessary to be stated for a just disposal of this case are as follows:--One Puttakenchamma was the daughter of one Malavalli Chandagiriyappa. Chandagiriyappa and his brother Malavalli Kamaiahconstituted a undivided Hindu joint family. Chandagiriyappa died some time in the year 1975 leaving behind him the plaintiff, H.C. Thimmaraju and children of his pre-deceased son M. C. Narayappa who were arrayed as defendants in the aforementioned original suit. She claimed partition of the suit schedule properties, movables and immovables, and possession by metes and bounds particularly of a dwelling house situated on Kilari Road, item No. 1 of plaint 'A' Schedule property in which she claimed to be res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1989]177ITR71(KAR); [1989]177ITR71(Karn)
Rajendra Babu, J.1. After the death of Hajee Mohd. Hussain Sait in 1955, his two sons, namely, Hajee Abdul Sait (assessee) and Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait, claimed in the assessment proceeding under the Estate Duty Act that they belong to the Cutchi Memons sect of Muslims and in the matter of inheritance and succession including rules as to joint family property, the right of the same by birth and devolution thereto by survivor in the civil station area of Bangalore City. Ultimately, the Mysore High Court in the case of Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait v. CED : [1968]69ITR45(KAR) , and on appeal from the decision, the Supreme Court in the case of CED v. Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait : [1972]86ITR53(SC) , upheld their contention that only 1/3rd of the undivided share of Hajee Mohd. Hussain passed on to them on his death for the purpose of assessment under the Estate Duty Act. The Mysore Cutchi Memons Act 1 of 1943 ('the Act' for short), become applicable in the year 1948 after retrocession of the civil ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR835
Rajendra Babu, J1. In C.R.P.No. 3911/86 the petitioner/Judgment debtor questions the correctness of the order dated 8-8-1986 and 22-8-1986 in Ex.No. 10046/1986, whereby the executing Court issued warrant for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent/decree-holder.In C.R.P.No. 3560/86 the petitioner/decree-holder questions the correctness of the order dated 18-9-86 passed on I.A.No. IV In Ex.No. 10046/86 whereby the executing Court passed an order of restitution by redelivery of possession of the suit schedule property to the Judgment-debtor/respondent.I shall refer to the array of parties, for the purpose of convenience, as in the executing Court in Ex.No. 10046/ 86 from which these two petitions arise. Since the two petitions arise out of common proceeding on the same set of facts, I dispose of them together.2. The facts leading to these revision petitions, in brief, are as follows:-The Decree-holder filed a suit on 20th February 1984 in O.S.10099/84, on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant151
ORDER1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. The following are the material facts of the cases :The scheme of nationalisation of road transport routes under the Chitradurga-Davanagere City was approved on 23-9-1987. The petitioners are existing operators as asserted by them, entitled to operate on the inter State routes subject to consider restrictions. Writ Petitions Nos. 14722 to 14724 of 1987 and other connected writ petitions were filed by the existing operators challenging the notices issued by the Regional Transport Authority under purported exercise of power in proviso to S.68F(1D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking leave to question the approved scheme in due course, should a necessity arose.3. The above writ petitions were allowed by this Court by orders dt. 7-10-1987, 13-10-1987 and 16-10-1987 disposing of the entire batch of writ petitions granting leave ...
Tag this Judgment!