Karnataka Court January 1990 Judgments
M.N. Jayalakshmi Vs. Nil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1273; 1990(3)KarLJ323
ORDERVenkatachala, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred, against an order made by the Court of first instance in a proceeding, under Section 389 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Succession Act'). A Court fee of Rs. 20/-was paid on the Memorandum of Appeal as was paid in the proceeding of the Court of first instance. Since the Registry of this Court directed the appellant to pay Court fee on the Memorandum of Appeal as required under Article 4 of Schedule 1 to the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1953 (for short 'the Court Fees Act'), the appellant has got the matter listed before Court for orders. Need to decide upon the question of the exact Court fee payable on the Memorandum of this appeal has thus arisen.2. Article 4 of Schedule I to the Court Fees Act, relying upon which the Registry of this Court has directed the appellant to make good the deficit Court fee payable on this Memorandum of Appeal, reads:ArticleParticularsProper Fee Memorandum of appeal ag...
Tag this Judgment!Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage Vs. State of Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1713; 1990(1)KarLJ244
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act XXI of 1860). The Act is a Central Act. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to frame proper Rules to carry out the provisions of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 as well as a Writ of Mandamus to the respondents viz., the State of Karnataka and the Commissioner of Police to take immediate steps to arrange for removal of all unauthorised advertisements from places open to public view.2. Insofar as the first of the prayers is concerned as enumerated above, if the provisions of the Act can be implemented even in the absence of framing the Rules, there is no need for directing the State to frame the Rules. The Act was passed by the Karnataka Legislature and received the assent of the President on 20th August, 1982 by provisions m...
Tag this Judgment!Kariyappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1269; 1990(1)KarLJ359
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. The petitioner had filed an application n Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Malavalli which was registered as No. LRF/74/81-62. The Land Tribunal consisted of four members, including the Chairman, two members took a view in favour of the petitioner and the other two took a contrary view.2. When the matter stood at that stage, the petitioner challenged the order dated 7-3-1984 passed by the Land Tribunal before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4777/84, which came to be transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as the LRA) under Section 19 of the Karnataka Act No. 19 of 1986.3. The grievance in this Revision Petition is that the LRA is not deciding the appeal on the ground that the Land Tribunal has not decided the petitioner's application (Form-7) in one way or the other. Therefore, this is a case wherein the LRA is refusing to exercise the appellate jurisdiction. It is also stated that it is only adjourning the appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Jacob Vs. Bangalore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR741
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. The petitioner is a student of Sanjay Gandhi College of Education, Vasanthanagar, Bangalore. He approached this Court for a Mandamus to the first respondent directing it to approve the admission of the petitioner to B.Ed., course for the academic year 1988-89.2. The petitioner has passed his B.A., degree examination as an external candidate in the Osmania University. Admittedly being an external candidate, it cannot be said that the petitioner has studied in the educational pattern 10+2+3. The second respondent-College wrote a letter dated 18-2-1989 to the effect that the petitioner has in fact passed 10+2+3 pattern, but this statement of the second respondent is not supported by records. On the other hand, the marks card produced substantiates that the petitioner has passed as an external candidate only and does not show that he has studied in the stipulated pattern. In the letter dated 15-12-1988 which is Annexure-B, the Bangalore University notified the second...
Tag this Judgment!C.L. Kalappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Excise)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: 1990(1)KarLJ226
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner is a licensee to vend Indian made Foreign Liquor. The licence is called C.L.2 licence. The licence was obtained under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian made Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 (for short 'the Liquor Rules'). Originally, the licenced premises was situated near the Bus Stand and it belonged to the Municipality. Since the Municipality decided to demolish the building, the petitioner approached the Licensing Authority to claim permission to shift the shop to the premises which is situate near I.B. Road, Kushalnagar. Accordingly, the permission to shift shop to D.No. 4-8(2), I.B. Road, Kushalnagar was granted on 15-10-1981. Subsequently, it seems certain objections were raised by the members of the public that the said shop was very close to Ganapathy Temple and sought the shifting of the shop from the said premises at No. 4-8(2). Consequent on this, the Deputy Commissioner made an order on 30-10-1981 as per Annexure...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvathamma Vs. K.R. Lokanath and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant283; ILR1991KAR695; 1991(3)KarLJ367
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 5th June 1989 passed by the X Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 1877/1980 directing that the counter claim made by the first defendant on 27-8-1986 be excluded from the suit with a liberty to the first defendant to peruse the counter claim if she is willing by means of an independent suit.2. O.S. No. 1877/1980 is filed by the respondents for recovery of possession of the suit property bearing old No. 19, later Nos.23, 70 and 59 and the present No. 52situated at Poorna Venkata Rao Road, Bangalore City on the ground that the first defendant failed to perform her part of the agreement of sale dated 21-10-1965 and she is not entitled to remain in possession of the Suit property as she was put in possession of the first floor pursuant to the agreement of sale and the ground floor is occupied by the first defendant unauthorisedly. The plaintiffs have also prayed for future mesne profits.3. Sri Ramabhad...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Afroz Azzadi Vs. Sriram, Major
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2475; ILR1990KAR385; 1990(1)KarLJ265
ORDER1. Criminal Revision Petition No. 456/1989 is filed against the order of dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant before the Sessions Court being aggrieved by an order passed by the trial Court, whereas the other Criminal Petition is filed against the order of the Sessions Court dismissing the revision petition filed by him before it, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the complaint filed by him in the trial Court. 2. Both the appeal as well as the revision petition had come up for hearing on two previous occasions and on 21-1-1989 when the appellant or the revision petitioner, as the case may be, was not present, both of them were dismissed for default. Subsequently, interlocutory applications were filed for restoration of the same. But it is undisputed that after these petitions were filed, those applications came to be withdrawn. 3. The petitioner's counsel contends that the orders of the Sessions Court are not sustainable in view of the settled position that ne...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and Another Vs. B. Ganesha Krishna Bhat and Others ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant28; ILR1990KAR1045
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. This batch of writ appeals arise out of an order made by a learned single Judge of this Court striking down and holding that Section 4-B of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is unconstitutional.2. The respondents who are licensees under the Cinematographs Act to conduct video shows by exhibiting cinematograph films through Television and Video Cassette Recorders challenged in several writ petitions the constitutional validity of Section 4-B of the Act on various grounds which can be summarised as under :-- (i) That Section 4-B of the Act is not a charging provision; (ii) That the levy does not fit into the scheme of the Act in view of the fact that it does not provide for assessment, appeal and other procedural safeguards; (iii) That the levy of flat rate of tax u/s. 4-B is arbitrary and in violation of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; and (iv) That the levy u/s. 4-B at a flat rate of Rs. 2,500/- per mon...
Tag this Judgment!illahi Baksh and Syed Siraj Ahmed Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR331(KAR); [1990]183ITR331(Karn); 1990(1)KarLJ221
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These reference arise under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'). While T. R. C. Nos. 18 and 19 of 1981 are by the same assessee for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, respectively, T. R. C. No. 17 of 1981 is by another assessee for the assessment year 1975-76. 2. The assessee in each of these references is a partner in a firm known as Messrs. Hotel Hindustan having one-fourth share and one of the properties of the said firm is a hotel building. Each of the assessees also has one-fourth share holding as co-owner in respect of the building known as Himalaya Talkies. These assets were valued for the year ending on March 31, 1975, at Rs. 27,64,500 in respect of the hotel building and at Rs. 6,46,000 in respect for the talkies. 3. The Wealth-tax Officer computed the market value of these assets on the basis of the valuation report and brought to tax a sum of Rs. 1,61,500 as one-fourth share in Himalaya talkies and a sum of Rs. 3,45,024 as one-fourth v...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deepchand Kishanlal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(Kar)322; [1990]183ITR299(KAR); [1990]183ITR299(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question of law referred to us under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), is as under: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), (i) that no interest under section 139(8) is leviable on the registered firm as the advance tax paid as registered firm exceeded the tax payable by it as registered firm; and (ii) that interest is payable to the assessee under section 214 by revision on account of reduction in total income in appeal?' 2. While allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the payment of interest on the excess advance tax under section 214 of the Act by computing the excess with reference to the revised order. The Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, affirmed this order, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ch...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »