Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1701; 1989(2)KarLJ548
Ad-interim ex parte injunction granted to plaintiff preventing interference with performance of duties and functions as Chara Charajangama Pattadhikari and Uttaradhikari to the office of Matadhipathi of Sri Siddaganga Mutt, being vacated after hearing both sides; in Appeal: Held:(i) Grant of ad-interim injunction has to course through the following slots: (i) prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; (iii) irreparable injury to - the plaintiff, and (iv) lastly, all injunctions- being absolutely discretionary in nature whether there was any overriding consideration that supported the refusal of the injunction by the Court-below. (ii) The existence of a prima facie casein the matter of granting injunction is reallythe harbinger or the all clear sign to go aheadin investigating other aspects of the questiongoverning the grant or refusal of injunction.If there was no prima facie case at all or thecase put forward was so weak and tainted havingvery little prospect of being accepted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1989]180ITR660(KAR); [1989]180ITR660(Karn); 1989(3)KarLJ305
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The question of law referred for our opinion is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the car gifted to the assessee by the people of his constituency is not taxable as income under the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee was a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1976-77. For that year, the Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 37,500 to his income which amount was the contribution collected by the admirers of the assessee and handed over to him for the purchase of a car. It was found by him that this payment was made on account of the admiration that the contributors had towards him for the service he rendered to the people of his constituency. The Income-tax Officer held that as this amount was in taken of gratitude for the serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR3083
ORDER 21 RULE 58(5) - Inapplicable when claim or objection decreed on merits - Governs rejection of application under proviso. Sub-rule (5) is attracted only when theCourt refuses to entertain an application filedunder Sub-rule (1), and such a refusal is byvirtue of the proviso to the said sub-rule.When the claim or objection is decreed on itsmerits, Sub-rule (5) will not be applicable.The said sub-rule governs a situation, whenthe application is rejected only under thetwo specified circumstances. (B) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT & CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - AWARDS: ENFORCEMENT - No exclusive machinery provided, C.P.C. applicable, awards being passed by Civil Courts referred as Tribunals - In execution, procedure as forum for appeal as of Civil Court - Full effect to be given to Order 21 C.P.C. The Motor Vehicles Act does not providefor any exclusive machinery to enforce theAwards. The provisions of the Code of CivilProcedure are attracted, since the Awards areof the Civil Courts (though referred as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1989)ACC333
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Compensation was awarded under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, in favour of the claimants, towards the injuries suffered in an accident caused by a lorry, owned by one Pitambaraswamy. The amounts awarded were in excess of the liability of the Insurance Company. Hence, the claimants took out execution against Pitambaraswamy towards the balance; in this, his immovable properties were attached.2. The petitioner in these revision petitions is the father of Pitambaraswamy. Petitioner filed the applications under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall the order of attachment, claiming the properties to be his absolute properties, asserting that his son had no means to acquire the properties. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal to which the execution case had been transferred, negatived the claim of the petitioner; consequently, the applications were rejected, after considering the respective evidences adduced by the parties. Hence these ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1989(2)KarLJ322; [1989]75STC13(Kar)
M. Rama Jois, J. 1. These writ petitions have been referred, at the stage of preliminary hearing, to Division Bench under section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The following question of law arises for consideration : Whether, under section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' for short), the assessing authority has the power to make a reassessment, if after making an assessment, it finds that the assessment of tax on the turnover of any item of goods had been made at a rate lower than the rate at which that particular turnover was assessable to tax under the Act 2. The facts, in brief, are as follows : (i) In W.P. No. 1235 of 1986 : The assessee in this case is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Act. The period of assessment concerned is 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment-I), Bangalore-9, was the assessing authority. Out of the gross turnover of the assessee during the relevant period, the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant56; ILR1989KAR1430
ORDER1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since the facts are common in all these petitions and certain common questions of law arise for consideration in all these petitions.2. En W.P. Nos. 14386 to 14390 of 1987. she petitioners are the builders, owners of high rise residential apartment buildings and it is common ground that they had put up these high rise buildings in accordance with the plans sanctioned by the Corporation of City of Bangalore which is the 1st respondent herein. They are aggrieved by the notices issued by the Corporation which are produced as Annexure-A to E in these petitions. By those notices, the Commissioner for Corporation who is the 1st respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) had called upon the petitioners to bring down the height of the building to 35' 55' with ground floor plus two, four upper floors respectively within 30 days from the date of receipt of these notices failing which they were warned that suitable act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1895; 1989(3)KarLJ65
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J 1. Revision Petition is by the first defendant in a suit for partition, filed by the first respondent herein. On the death of the father of the main parties hereto, it is said that the first defendant is in possession of the properties, of which partition is sought through the Court. By consent of the learned Counsel, matter was heard for final disposal.2. First defendant admitted in his written statement that the property described in schedule-A is a residential house belonged to the deceased and was partible amongst the parties. But 1st defendant denied the property described in schedule-B, which is a running railway catering business, as not partible. 1st defendant asserted that there was one more property in the State of Maharashtra, which should have been included for partition; as the said property was not included, maintainability of the suit was questioned. At para-19, 1st defendant claimed reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 60,000/-which, he, allegedly had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1990CriLJ286; ILR1990KAR161; 1989(1)KarLJ346
ORDER1. This revision petition filed under S. 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 12-7-88 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Cr.A. No. 124/87 dismissing; the said appeal for nonappearance of the appellant and his learned counsel on the said date and also on the previous date of hearing. 2. The facts which have given rise to this revision petition are as under : Petitioner was accused in C.C. No. 5922 of 1984 on the file of the V Addl. Metropolitan prosecuted, Bangalore, in which he was Magistrate, Bangalore, in which he was prosecuted for offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. By judgment dt. 30-9-87, the learned V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, convicted the petitioner-accused for offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under S. 279 IPC and Rs. 1000/- for the offence under S. 338 IPC, in all Rs. 1200/- with the usual default clause. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1268; 1989(1)KarLJ309
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. Our Judgment would dispose of W.A.No. 354/83 and also W.As.Nos.1750/86 and 2723/86.2. In order to appreciate the controversy the facts in Writ Appeal No. 354/83 may be noticed3. K. Chikkabalusa and Smt. Gangobai have filed this appeal against the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 4th February 1983 by which Writ Petition No. 16014/81 filed by them has been dismissed.4. Appellant-1 had mortgaged the property in dispute to respondent-1 S. Nagaraju. After the coming into force of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976, (Karnataka Act No. 25 of 1976), (hereinafter referred to as '1976 Act'), an application dated 22-12-1976 was filed by appellant-1 claiming relief on the plea that he was a debtor as defined in that Act. That application was allowed by the Executive Magistrate vide his order dated 24-9-1977 and it was declared that the debt was discharged and the property should be redeemed. Feeling aggrieved by that order, respondent-1 filed Writ Pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1520
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is by the first respondent In the Writ Petition. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Tahsildar dated 10-6-1983 (Annexure-A) ordering his eviction from the land in question, and granting the land to the appellant herein. Annexure-A filed, contains earlier orders dated 15-12-1980 and 16-3-1981 declaring the sale in favour of the Writ Petitioner as void and a direction to evict him from the land in question.2. According to the Writ Petitioner, he purchased the land in question on 18-3-1971. He contended that he was entitled to the land, since his vendor was held as entitled to the grant of the land under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Therefore, the petitioner challenged the order of the Tahsildar dated 10-6-1983 referred to above.3. The appellant contended in the statement of objections that the Writ Petitioner had been evicted earlier an...
Tag this Judgment!