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.
Deputy Commissioner Vs. K.V. Gururaja Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1855; 1989(2)KarLJ84
Hiremath, J. 1. The Original Suit from the decree in which the present appeal is filed by the defendants therein was for declaration that the respondent-plaintiff was born on 15-3-1951 and consequently direct the defendants appellants-1 and 2 herein to make necessary corrections relating to his date of birth in the S.S.L.C. marks card and correcting the date of birth already in records as 15-3-1951.2. The plaintiff alleged that even though he was born on 15-3-1951 there was no entry made in this behalf and referring to the other issues to his parents, he has asserted that the birth date now given should be accepted. Smt. K.V. Vani who was the first child to his parents was born on 26-7-1946, the second an elder brother by the name K.V. Badrinath born on 2-7-1948 he being the 3rd issue and the 4th is a sister by name K.V. Pushpa born on 12-12-1953 and the 5th is K.V. Lakshmi born on 5-2-1956. When he was admitted to the School his date of birth was wrongly given as 13-2-1947 through ove...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. C.S. Patil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Kar)194; [1989]180ITR97(KAR); [1989]180ITR97(Karn)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. This is a reference under section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The question referred for the opinion of this court reads : 'Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case the Gift-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is not chargeable to gift-tax in respect of the reduction in his share interest on the admission of the new partners ?' 2. The fats of the case are these : The assessee was a partner in the firm, Shree Milk supply. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, there was realignment of shares in the firm on the admission of new partners. Prior to April 1, 1974, there were four partners in the firm including the assessee. The share of profit each of them was 25 per cent. By a partnership deed dated April 14, 1974, a change in the constitution of the firm was brought about by admitting six more partners. The original four partners had the following credit balances to their capital account as ...
M/S. Anand Enterprises, Bangalore and Others Vs. Syndicate Bank, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant175; ILR1990KAR745; 1989(2)KarLJ117
ORDER1. This civil revision petition laid to this Court under S. 115, C.P.C. arises from and is directed against an order made by the Court-below on issues 5 and 6 in a pending suit being O.S. 557/82.2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the court-below and the sole respondent is the plaintiff. The parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant in the course of this order. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants amongst whom the first defendant was a firm of which defendants 2 to 5 were partners, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs and odd stated to be due under a term loan obtained by the defendants from the plaintiff on the security of certain properties. 4. In the course of the written statement filed on behalfof the defendants it was sought to be contended that because there was some delay on the part of the plaintiff in advancing the loan defendants who in anticipation of the said loan made certain arrangements had to suffer losses on account of the de...
Rajasekhar Vs. Chandrakant Veerabhadrappa Desai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1829; 1989(2)KarLJ37
ORDERBalakrishna, J1. The petitioner had filed an election dispute under Section 14 read with Section 23 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order passed by the Election Officer, Mandal Panchayat, Murgod Mandal, Saundatti Taluk, Belgaum District, who had rejected the nomination of the petitioner. Before, the Munsiff, Saundatti, in the election petition, the petitioner challenged the rejection his nomination on the ground that the Returning Officer had not followed the procedure prescribed under the Act. The Munsiff, Saundatti, framed a preliminary issue on the basis of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents therein. It is not disputed that no other issues were framed besides the preliminary issue. The Munsiff, after hearing, came to the conclusion that the election petition was not maintainable in view of the fact that the copies of the election peti...
Dr. M. Srinivas Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1166; 1989(1)KarLJ357
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This is a Writ Petition of an Opthalmologist whose wife is also a medical practitioner. The petitioner proposed to construct a nursing home for the benefit of the citizens of the locality on site No. 161, 18th Cross, Magadi Cross Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore and obtained a licence from the respondent-Corporation which sanctioned the plan and granted licence on 28-9-1985 in LP. No. 2668/84-85. After obtaining the approved plan and licence, the petitioner commenced construction of the front portion of the building according to the sanctioned plan on the northern and western side. According to the petitioner he had already spent a sum of Rs. 10,000,00/- for completion of the basement and ground-floor. He completed the construction work in July 1986. It is stated that flooring, plastering, white washing and other works have already been carried out and that rolling shutters have also been fixed to the ground-floor portion. The petitioner thereafter applied to the Kar...
Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gundappagowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1585
Rama Jois, J.1. These 11 appeals are presented by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hosanagar, against the awards made by the learned Civil Judge, Sagar, in separate references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. There are large number of appeals presented by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hosanagar, against the awards made by the Civil Judge, Sagar, Shimoga district which are posted for hearing. There are also a few appeals by the claimants. These ten appeals together with the cross objection in one of the appeals are taken up for hearing. As the decision rendered in these appeals would govern all other appeals also, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants in other similar matters were also permitted to address arguments.3. Though the awards are separate, as the questions of fact and law arising for consideration are the same in all the cases, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.4. The facts of these cases, in brief, are these:-Preliminary Notificat...
M. Papanna Vs. Hon'ble Chief Justice
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1328; 1989(2)KarLJ372
ORDERK.A. Swami, J1. At the stage of preliminary hearing, learned Government Pleader was directed to take notice on behalf of first respondent and to produce the records. Accordingly, learned Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the first respondent and produced the records pertaining to the selection proceedings in question. Therefore the petition is heard as to whether the Rule should be issued or not.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:'i) Call for the records relating to promotion of respondents 2 and 3 as Judgment Writers;ii) Declare the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 as Judgment Writers, as illegal, arbitrary and void by an appropriate Writ, order or direction;iii) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the case of the petitionerfor promotion as Judgment Writer on the basis of his performance at the first test held on 21-4-1988 and to gi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›