Karnataka Court November 1990 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.
K. Gangasetty Vs. S. Muniswami
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3164; 1991(2)KarLJ230
K.A. Swami, J. 1. Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 18-8-1983 passed by the learned XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 1884 of 1980. 2. Though the suit in question was originally filed in the Civil Judge's Court, Bangalore City on 26-10-1977 as O.S. No. 770/1977, but on the establishment of City Civil Court, it statutorily stood transferred to the City Civil Court and was numbered as O.S. No. 1884/1980. 2.1. The trial Court (City Civil Court) has decreed the suit in the following terms: 'After contest, it is ordered and decreed that: the defendants-1 and 2 are directed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the plaintiff's within three months from today. It is further ordered and decreed that the defendants-1 and 2 do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,800-00 (Rupees five thousand eight hundred only) together with Court costs and current interest thereon at 6% p.a. from th...
Mrs. Nina Nargis Devaud and Another Vs. Mrs Farida G. Devecha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2694; ILR1991KAR712; 1991(1)KarLJ139
ORDER1. This is an unfortunate case in which the daughter and her mother, who has taken a second husband are at loggerheads to such an extent that they are involved in Civil as well as Criminal litigation. 2. Respondent Mrs. Farida G. Devacha is the daughter of first petitioner Mrs. Nina Nargis Devaud. Second petitioner Mr. Henri Devaud is the second husband of the 1st petitioner. Respondent is the daughter born to the first petitioner out of her wedlock with her former husband F. K. Irani who appears to have died in 1985. Thereafter, first petitioner is said to have married the second petitioner who is of Swiss Nationality, in 1988. F. K. Irani owned a spacious building with a vast compound bearing old No. 1 (New No. 3) in the Museum Road, Civil Station, Bangalore 1. The said house and the space adjoining it also abuts the Church street on the otherside. There is sharp controversy as to whether the respondent or the petitioners are in lawful and exclusive physical possession of that p...
Ranesh Timmanna Sargankallawaddor Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1793; ILR1991KAR615
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. The deceased Neelavva and the accused-appellant were married just five months prior to her death which according to the prosecution occurred on account of fatal blows inflicted by the appellant-accused on 29-8-1988 at about 6.45 p.m. at Karwar beach near a certain restaurant called 'Sea Beach Restaurant'. Out of persons who happened to be that evening to spend time, PW-1 Santosh a student had gone to the beach to play foot-ball. He and some others were playing foot-ball while some of his friends were sitting in front of Sea Beach Hotel on a stone culvert. One Narendra among them informed CW-22 Santhosh that a girl was lying drunk on the sand of the beach and out of curiosity these three persons including PW 1 went to the spot where that lady was lying. They saw her dead with bleeding injuries lying face up and about 200 feet away, they saw the present appellant lying with injuries over his stomach. He was lying with face down. He could not immediately go to the Poli...
Chonary Ahmed Kutty Vs. Special Police Establishment
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR726; 1990(3)KarLJ483
ORDERRamachandrlah, J. 1. The point that falls for determination in this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. by the second accused in C.C.No. 1343/1989 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City (for short 'the Magistrate') is whether the charge-sheet filed by the respondent against the petitioner and one Smt. P.V. Surayya on 21-3-1989 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Pass Ports Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act') by the first accused and the offence punishable under Section 12(2) of the Act by the petitioner is barred by time as the period of limitation of one year is prescribed under Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has by his order dated 12-3-1990 held that the charge-sheet is filed within time.2. The relevant facts are that one P.V. Surayya, resident of Kalpakancheri in Kerala State filed an application for a passport in the Passport Office at Banga...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR77(KAR); [1991]190ITR77(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this reference case, the Tribunal somewhat strangely had referred the following question for answer by us under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the limit of permissible deduction of entertainment expenditure under section 37(2A) should be applied not only with reference to the income computed under section 28, but also taking into account the income computed under the head 'Interest on securities', if he securities are held as stock-in-trade ?' For the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee, Vysya Bank Limited, Bangalore, claimed that in determining the limit of permissible deduction under section 37(2A), the limit stated therein should be applied not only with reference to the income to be computed under section 28 under the head 'Profits and gains of business' before the allowance of such expenditure, but...
Manipal Industries Ltd. Vs. Comissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Kar)102; [1991]188ITR445(KAR); [1991]188ITR445(Karn); 1991(1)KarLJ311
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. This reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with a statement of the case has come before us with the following question raise for answer : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order for the assessment year 1973-74 was valid in law despite the fact that the income-tax Officer had altered the depreciation allowance in the assessment order after the approval under section 144B of the Act given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner?' 2. Before we proceed to give our answer to the question, the facts may be stated briefly and they are as follows : For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee, Messrs. Manipal Industries Ltd., Manipal, in its return claimed depreciation on machinery at Rs. 2,69,672. The assessing authority did not accept the return as filed. He therefore, assessed the assesses-petitioner under sub-section (3) of section 143 of the Act. In that...
Sterling Foods Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)95CTR(Kar)36; [1991]190ITR275(KAR); [1991]190ITR275(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs., J.1. In this income-tax reference case, the following question is referred to us for our answer : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the receipt from the sale of import entitlements could not be included in the income of the assessee for the purpose of computing the relief under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. In the assessment year 1979-80, Messrs. Sterling Foods, Mangalore, received a sum of Rs. 3,09,800 by way of sale of import licences and export commission. In the return filed, they claimed relief in respect of that receipt under section 80HH in respect of sale of import licences. The Income-tax Officer held that since the profit derived from the industrial undertaking results in a negative figure, no deduction under section 80HH was admissible. Therefore, he rejected the claim of the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the recei...
Stumpp, Schuele and Somappa Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: (1991)190CTR(Kar)152; [1991]190ITR152(KAR); [1991]190ITR152(Karn); [1992]61TAXMAN278(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. In this income-tax reference case, the Appellate Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) on an application made by the appellant-assesses before it, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, declined to refer the first of the two questions which the assessee required the Tribunal to refer to this court for answer. However, the Tribunal, after considering the facts of the case, referred the second question which is as follows : 'Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the expenses incurred by an assessee on account of its employees attending to its business from outside its headquarters for the days on which the employees did not actually travel would also come under the purview of section 37(3) of the Act read with the rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules ?' 2. The facts leading to the appeal and the reference may be stated briefly and they are as follows : The assessee is a manufacturing company carrying on its activities in Bangalore. For the assessment year ...
Keni Transports Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)KarLJ193; (1994)IIILLJ632Kant
ORDERRama Jois, J. 1. The petitioner has presented this writ petition questioning the legality of a notice issued by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bangalore, calling upon it to register itself under section 7 of the Contract Labour, (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ('the Act, for short), lead with Rule 18 of the Rules framed there under.2. The brief facts of the case are these: The petitioner is a transport operator. It entered into a contract with the Bangalore Dairy for the distribution of milk to various depots in Bangalore city area. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, who is incharge of the enforcement of the Act issued a notice dated 24.2.1984 to the petitioner, which is marked as Annexure-A. It reads:-'With reference to the above subject, by this time, I have made it very clear to you that every establishment wherein Contract Labour are employed, the Head of the Office or Department of the Government; or in a Factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, or in any other...
Venkatapathy Vs. B.K. Nagaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3150; 1991(2)KarLJ196
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 17-12-1981 passed in O.S. No. 2576/1980 by the learned III Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City. On the establishment of the City Civil Court, the suit came to be statutorily transferred to the Court of the City Civil Court, Bangalore City and was renumbered as O.S. No. 2576/1980. The suit was filed on 30-3-1978 for declaration of title that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and for possession and mesne profits. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit Schedule 'A' property was purchased by Chikka Bandappa, grandfather of the plaintiffs under a registered Sale Deed dated 22-5-1922 and Schedule 'B' property was granted to their uncle B. Ramaiah under a Grant Certificate dated 21-11-1964; that one Jyothinagarada Ramaiah was the tenant of the suit schedule premises des...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »