Karnataka Court March 1989 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.
A.L. Lamba Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1408
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. The petitioner, who is an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited ('SAIL' for short), has sought the following reliefs:(1) the benefit of placement in the higher scale under the service linked promotion scheme with effect from 2-1-1982 instead of 2-7-1982;(2) adjustment of the personal pay of Rs. 286-57 given to the petitioner in lieu of Bonus by fixing the pay at Rs. 2,130+6 (Personal Pay) instead of Rs. 1,890/- in the scale of Rs. 1650-80-2210;(3) for retention in the channel of promotion in the parent department and for promotion in accordance with the seniority in that channel;(4) for promotion of the petitioner and placement above respondents-3 and 4 in the parent channel of promotion of the petitioner and for full monetary benefit with retrospective effect;(5) for other consequential benefits.2. The material facts may be stated as follows:The petitioner joined SAIL as a graduate apprentice in 1960. On completion of training, he was promoted as a J...
Shant Kumar Vs. Zherabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2418; 1989(3)KarLJ101
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-10-1982 in final decree proceedings arising out of O.S.No. 104 of 1964. The present appellants were impleaded in the final decree proceedings as defendants 5 to 7, inter alia, on the ground that they were purchasers, pendente lite, of some of the immovable properties situate in Raichur Town, while the plaintiff's suit for partition was pending disposal in the Court of the Civil Judge at Yadgir in Gulbarga District.2. We may make a passing reference that the suit was filed by one Zeharabi, since deceased by her legal representatives, against one Gulam Mahaboob and two others, some of whom also died and are represented by their respective legal representatives since.3. The suit was originally filed in the Court at Gulbarga in the year 1950. Later, on the establishment of the Court of the Civil Judge at Yadgir, the suit was transferred there and was renumbered as O.S.No. 104 of 1964. That a preliminary decree ca...
B.T. Ravindranath Punja Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1989
Reported in: [1989]179ITR243(KAR); [1989]179ITR243(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ196
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. On March 16, 1972, there was a partition between the assessee and his son. Again a partition was made by the assessee between himself, his wife and minor unmarried daughter, by a deed dated March 4, 1978 (annexure-D). This partition was recognised by the Income-tax Officer under section 171 of the Income-tax Act and assessment was made in the status of a Hindu undivided family, though the return was filed as individual. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice under section 263 of the Act, as, in his opinion, the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessee filed his objections to the said notice. After considering the same, the Commissioner made an order holding that the partition in the joint family can be brought about only by coparceners and the female members, though entitled to shares on partition, cannot claim partition as of right according to Hindu law, and, in that view of the matter, ...
Chamundeswari Dharma Nidhi Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR946; [1990]181ITR139(KAR); [1990]181ITR139(Karn); 1989(3)KarLJ375
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the notification of the Government of Karnataka dated November 25, 1983, in No. FD 11 CAX 83 (annexure-Q) issued under section 12(g) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by which the Government withdrew the approval granted to the charitable trust under the name of 'Chamundeswari Dharma Nidhi', Chikmagalur. 2. The petitioner in this petition is the Chamundeswari Dharma Nidhi Trust constituted under a deed dated May 15, 1970, for the following purposes : (a) To establish, maintain, run, develop, improve, extend, grant donations for and to aid and assist in the establishment, maintenance, running, development, improvement and extension of hospitals, clinics, dispensaries, maternity homes and similar institutions in the State of Karnataka for affording treatments, cure, rest recuperation and other advantages in the way of a...
Mohamed Ameer and Others Vs. Hafeez Khan, and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant32; ILR1989KAR1423; 1989(1)KarLJ348
1. The original appellant herein was defendant No. 1 in the original suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 to 8 for declaration that the order of eviction passed in HRC 406/1985 is null and void and not binding on them and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.1(a). The facts of the case are found in the impugned order of the court below. The 1st defendant admittedly had obtained a decree for eviction against defendant No. 4 - Smt. Sakhina Bi in HRC 406/1965. The plaintiffs pleaded that the schedule property is part and parcel of the land known as Golla Malik Shah Fakir Inam land and the darga and the lands were under the supervision of Muzarai Department. Syed Budden Shah was managing the Darga and the lands till his death and thereafter, his granddaughter Smt. Sakhina Bi defendant No. 4 came in possession and management of the Darga and was conducting the annual sandal and urus...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Telephone Industries
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1989
Reported in: [1989]179ITR129(KAR); [1989]179ITR129(Karn); 1989(3)KarLJ443
Rajendra Babu, J.1. The assessee is a public sector company to which the Uttar Pradesh Government granted some land free of cost and that had not been included in the books of account. On the advice of the statutory auditors and the Company Law Board, the assessee got the land valued and debited to land account by giving a corresponding entry in the capital reserve account amounting to Rs. 6,11,415. The assessee included the value of this asset in the surtax assessment for the purpose of working the capital base. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee by applying Explanation 1 to rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ('Act' for short). He also reduced the capital base with reference to income exempt from tax under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Explanation had no application to the case, and in his view, a book asset would be an intangible asset such as goodwill. He ...
Channabassavaiah Vs. Shivamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC196; ILR1990KAR1193; 1989(2)KarLJ257
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 16-11-1983 passed in Original Suit No. 66/1986 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tiptur. In the course of this Judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the Trial Court.2. The respondent brought the suit for partition interalia on the plea that she was the wife of defendant's son Basavaraju, since deceased. Therefore, in the properties, which were absolute properties belonging to the defendant and said Basavaraju her deceased husband, she was entitled to succeed to the interest of her husband in the properties. The suit was resisted by defendant interalia contending that Basavaraju was his son and his mother was an immoral woman went away from the house voluntarily and began to live in the house of her father. They had never come back to live with him.. He did not know anything about the solemnisation of the marriage of the plaintiff with his son and she was no...
H. Shivappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1741; 1989(2)KarLJ295
ORDERBopanna, J.1. Writ Petition No. 3549 of 1988 is filed by the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of Bhadra Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamitha, Doddabathi, which is the 4th respondent herein challenging the order dated 18-2-1988 made by the State Government under the provisions of Section 30A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 (in short 'the Act'). By that order the State Government on a consideration of 23 charges levelled against the Management of the 4th respondent-Society superseded the Board of Management of the said Society and appointed the Deputy Commissioner of Chitradurga as the Special Officer in addition to his own duties to manage the affairs of the said society with immediate effect for a period of one year or until further orders whichever is earlier. The very same order is challenged by a shareholder of the Society by name B. Veerappa in W.P.No. 1919 of 1989.2. In Writ Petition No. 4155 of 1988 as many as 202 members of the Society claiming to be agricultu...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. M. Nalini Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Kar)247; [1990]183ITR523(KAR); [1990]183ITR523(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ537
H. Rama Jois, J.1. This is reference under section 57 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The question of law referred for our opinion reads: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the principle laid down in the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case T. R. Jayasankar [1972] 83 ITR 445 would be applicable for giving rebate on agricultural lands under section 35(3) of the Estate Duty Act, though the said decision related to the application of the provisions of section 35(1) of the Estate Duty Act and the facts were also different?' 2. The undisputed facts of the case are these: One M. Nagendra Rao died on August 10, 1974. M. Nalini Rao, his wife, was the accountable person. She rendered account relating to the estates of the late M. Nagendra Rao. The deceased had two sons. The elder son had predeceased Nagendra and his 1/3rd interest in the Hindu undivided family had devolved on the mother, Nalini Ra...
N. Krishan (Decd. by Legal Representative, K. Badrinarayan and ors.) V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1989
Reported in: (1989)80CTR(Kar)15; ILR1990KAR404; [1989]180ITR585(KAR); [1989]180ITR585(Karn)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In these four petitions presented by the same person praying for quashing the order passed by the Settlement Commission (Income-tax and Wealth-tax) constituted under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the following two questions of law arise for consideration : '(1) Whether a person who approaches the Income-tax Settlement Commission constituted under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a full and final settlement of his case is entitled to question the legality of its decision in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what is the scope for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India against a decision of the Settlement Commission ?' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was a regular assessee being assessed to income-tax the provision of the Act. He was the managing director of Internation Inst...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »