Karnataka Court September 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.
Canara Bank Vs. Bapujinagar Industrial Workers' Co-operative Society L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas556(Kar); 1989(3)KarLJ507
Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. On August 3, 1989, I heard learned counsel for the parties in detail in regard to the merits and recorded the following in the order sheet : 'After hearing Mr. V. N. Ramanand and having regard to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 70 that the credit agency could raise a dispute under section 70 of the Act may not be disputed (sic). Therefore, the only question which falls for determination as already noticed is whether the Assistant Registrar had lost jurisdiction during the pendency of the dispute before him on account of enlargement of the area of activities of the co-operative society to more than one taluk. From the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which this court has perused from the records produced by the learned Government pleader, it is clear, that there was no enlargement of activities of the co-operative society to more than one taluk during the pendency of the dispute before the Assistant Registrar. A preliminary objection w...
Dyna Foods Pvt. Ltd., Dharwar Vs. Fakirappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant113; ILR1989KAR3125; 1989(2)KarLJ377
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order of the Tahsildar, Dharwar, who is respondent-3 herein, dated 17-9-1988 resuming the land in question under Ss. 5(3) and 5(4) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and ordering restoration of the land under S. 7(3)(a) of the Act to respondents-1 and 2.2. Arguments were advanced at length by both the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents-1 and 2. The point which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the impugned order is justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case, and whether respondent-3 has acted without jurisdiction.3. The petitioner is a Company represented by its Managing Director by name Ramesh S. Subbaiah Bolar. The land in question measuring 4.06 acres situate in Sattur village in Sy. No. 94/1 was originally seth sanadi inam land and was with respondents-1 and 2as inamdars. After the Act came into force, the land stood resumed to the Slate Government. In t...
Mariappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1167; 1989(3)KarLJ414
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the order of the second respondent made on 28-10-1988, whereby the Deputy Commissioner directed the sale of the paddy and rice seized from the petitioner, as an interim measure. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the second respondent (Dy. Commissioner) not to proceed under section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, 'the Act') in respect of the paddy and rice seized from the petitioner's premises. By amending the writ petition, one more prayer is sought, which is permitted. By this, the petitioner seeks quashing of the mahazar dated 27-10-1988 drawn by the third respondent, Tahsildar, whereby certain quantities of rice and paddy were seized from the petitioner's mill as per Annexure-K. 2. According to the petitioner, he has been carrying on the rice mill business and has been hulling the paddy in his rice mill. Apart from this, he owns about 6 acres of irrigated land growing two crops of paddy in a year along with his b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nippon Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Kar)24; [1990]181ITR518(KAR); [1990]181ITR518(Karn); 1990(1)KarLJ8
1. For the accounting year ending on June 30, 1972, deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), was allowed to the assessee. The assessment was reopened under section 148 of the Act and the relief granted under section 80J of the Act was cancelled. The Income-tax Officer took the view that, in the initial year 1971-72, the assessee is not entitled to the relief under section 80J of the Act as the value of the old assets exceeded the limit of 20% as stipulated in section 80J(4)(ii) of the Act and negatived the contention that the percentage should be worked for the year in question and not as in the initial assessment year. Against that order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who having held that eligibility had to be considered each year on the basis of the then prevalent circumstances, found that the assessee was eligible to the benefit under section 80J of the Act. The Revenue being aggrieved by that ord...
E.M.V. Muthappan Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-1989
Reported in: (1990)88CTR(Kar)169; ILR1989KAR3517; [1990]184ITR161(KAR); [1990]184ITR161(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner in these two petitions is an assessee under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). For the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, the petitioner filed his returns accompanied by a letter which, inter alia, stated that he was, prior to the said letter, assessed to tax in his individual capacity, but on August 10, 1978, he having impressed his agricultural estate known as 'Cotacadu and Jeynacadu Coffee Estates', with the character of joint family property, he was not liable to pay any tax. In these circumstances, he requested the authority to conclude the assessment holding the petitioner as not liable to pay tax. 2. The petitioner was the karta of his undivided Hindu joint family consisting of himself, his wife, Banumathi, minor son, Vishwanathan, and a minor daughter. On August 14, 1978, the petitioner affected a partial partition which was registered on August 17, 1978, in which no share was allotted to the wife or t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›