Karnataka Court April 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.
M.S. Nagaraja Rao Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and Anoth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant35; ILR1990KAR877
ORDER1. Smt. T.N. Manjuladevi, learned Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for respondent 1.2. This is a writ petition filed by an allottee of the premises in question belonging to respondent 2 who is the landlord. When the premises was allotted to the petitioner by the Rent Controller, the notified rent was fixed at Rs. 400/- per month. However, on appeal preferred by the landlord before respondent I, the appellate authority enhanced the rent from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 550/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved.3. The short point for consideration is whether respondent I has the jurisdiction to enhance the notified rent fixed by the Rent Controller in accordance with S. 8(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').4. The undisputed fact is that Rs. 400/-which was fixed as the rent payable per month by virtue of the order of the Rent Controller, was the rent that was being paid by the previous tenant. At best, this may be chara...
India Saree Museum Vs. P. Kapurchand and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas375(Kar); 1989(2)KarLJ410
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a first defendant's appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated October 31, 1986, passed in O.S. No. 1136 of 1980 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. In the course of this judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial court. 2. The plaintiff, Kapurchand, a businessman carrying on business at Bangalore paid in all a sum of Rs. 60,000 to the defendant, a partnership firm, discounting three cheques drawn by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. He obtained, on printed discount forms, the signatures of the partner of the second defendant-firm evidencing payment of cash to the second defendant. When the cheques were presented after the due dates, they came to be dishonoured. Therefore, the suit for recovery of money together with interest at 18 per cent. per annum which the second defendant had to pay at the time of discounting in case of dishonour of the cheques. ...
Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Union Vs. Union of India and Or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1498; 1989(1)KarLJ323
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The question that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether dearness allowance, additional dearness allowance, city compensatory allowance and house rent allowance form part of the 'salary' of the salaried employees represented by the petitioner-Union and whether the said allowances are taxable under the Income-tax Act under the head 'Salaries'. 2. This contention does not survive in view of the amendment to section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 (3 of 1989), inserting sub-clauses (iii)(a) and (iii)(b) after sub-clause (iii). The clauses inserted with effect from April 1, 1962, are reproduced below : '(iii)(a) any special allowance or benefit, other than a perquisite included under sub-clause (iii), specifically granted to the assessee to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the performance of the duties of an office or employment of profit; (iii)(b) any allowance gran...
Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar Vs. Sri Venkateswara Real Estate ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2603
ORDERBopanna, J.1. By my Order dated 11-8-1988 : ILR1989KAR2562 the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of Company Petitions Nos. 32 and 67 of 1987 was upheld and the petitions were posted for grant of interim relief on 2-9-1988. Since the grant of interim relief is closely connected with the question of admission of these petitions, I have heard the learned Counsel on both these points. It may also be noticed that my Order dated 11-8-1988 is pending in appeal in O.S.A. No. 10 of 1988 and in the absence of any Order by the Division Bench staying the operation of that Order, there is no bar for this Court to hear these petitions on the question of admission and interim relief.2. Company Petitions Nos. 32 and 67 of 1987 are filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short the Act). Company Petitions Nos. 49 and 50 are filed by the very same petitioner under the provisions of Section 433(f) of the Act. The facts in all t...
Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Union Vs. Union of India and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Kar)42; [1989]179ITR521(KAR); [1989]179ITR521(Karn); [1989]46TAXMAN45(Kar)
S. R. RAJASEKHARA MURTHY J. - The question that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether dearness allowance, additional dearness allowance, city compensatory allowance and house rent allowance form part of the 'salary' of the salaried employees represented by the petitioner-Union and whether the said allowances are taxable under the Income-tax Act under the head 'Salaries'.This contention does not survive in view of the amendment to section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 (3 of 1989), inserting sub-clauses (iii)(a) and (iii)(b) after sub-clause (iii). The clauses inserted with effect from April 1, 1962, are reproduced below :'(iii)(a) any special allowance or benefit, other than a perquisite included under sub-clause (iii), specifically granted to the assessee to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the performance of the duties of an office or employment of profit;(iii)(b) any allowance granted to...
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sathyanarayana Transp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC321; [1993]76CompCas135(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners in this revision petition. They are aggrieved by the framing of a fresh issue, which reads thus: 'Whether the plaintiff prove that the said accident was due to the negligence of the defendant?' 2. The suit is one for damages. According to the plaintiffs, they entrusted with the defendant certain goods for transportation from Bangalore to Raichure. The goods were delivered in a damaged condition. According to the plaintiffs, the consignment was carried in a lorry which, while in transit on October 11, 1974, dashed against a transformer post and as a result of the accident, the transformer caught fire and the goods in the said lorry got damaged on account of fire and in the course of fire- fighting operations. The damaged consignments were collected by the defendant and despatched to the second plaintiff's office and delivered at Bangalore. The accident aforesaid was caused due to the negligence of the defendant. At para 10 of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›