Karnataka Court June 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.
Hajee Abdul Sattar Sait Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR134(KAR); [1990]186ITR134(Karn); 1990(2)KarLJ113
M. Rama Jois, J. 1. All these eight references have been made under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, on the application made by the assessee to the Tribunal. 2. The question of laws referred for our opinion reads : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true construction of sections 7(1) and 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal was right in holding that, in valuing the assessee's properties under section 7(1) and computing his net wealth under section 2(m) for the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee was not entitled to deduction of liability for capital gains tax which was a statutory liability of the assessee if the assessee's properties were sold or deemed to have been sold as contemplated by section 7(1) ?' 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are these : The assessee owns immovable properties assessable in his hands for payment of Wealth-tax. They include immovable properties ...
Shreedhar Shanai Vs. Chief Electoral Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2622
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner for impleading the Election Commissioner of India as respondent No. 5. In the application, it is stated that the petitioner has alleged in the petition 'Chemicalisation of Ballot Papers' against the respondents and that the Court also indicated that the Election Commission should be impleaded as respondent.2. In the Election Petition, the petitioner has averred in paras 7 to 11 thus:'7. At the time of counting of votes on 26-11-1989, the petitioner noticed that the stamp marks on 'Hand' symbol on nearly 30% of the ballot papers of each booth appeared to be uniform, fresher and brighter than the stamps on other symbols.8. The petitioner also noticed at the time of counting that the colour of nearly 30% of the ballot papers of each booth with stamp mark on 'Hand' symbol was somewhat different from other ballot papers.9. The petitioner contacted immediately over phone his friend, who is a Professor of Chemistry and expl...
Muniswamappa Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3923
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.The petitioners in these Writ Petitions have sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the notices (Annexures C and D) issued by the Tahsildars, respondents 2 and 3 respectively. They have also sought for a Declaration that the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act No. 13 of 1978) is invalid.2. The facts of the case briefly stated as follows:-The undisputed facts as disclosed from the pleadings and the impugned orders are that Sy. No. 144 measuring 27 guntas situate in Hebbiri village, Chintamani Taluk and Sy. Nos. 88 and 7 measuring 9 and 13 guntas respectively situate in Kotaballapalli village, Nelavanki Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, are endowed upon the Village Offices viz., Shanbogk and Niranti and that therefore these lands are governed under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). 3. It is also not in dispute that petitioner-1 Muniswamappa purchased land in Sy. No. 144 under a reg...
M.S. Chokkalingam Chettiar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant116; 1990(2)KarLJ456
ORDER1. Inordinate delay and nonpayment of the value of 260 logs of rosewood by the respondents to the petitioner has driven the petitioner to this Court.2. The following are the material facts of the case :The petitioner is the owner of Yemmegundi Estate of Woolugaily village of Shuntikoppa in Coorg District, Essentially, the petitioner is a Coffee Planter and in order to provide shade to the plantation, he had grown a number of rosewood trees in the estate.3. The Karnataka Forest Act, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 23/1974 regulates the trade and transportation of rosewood and 'bite' trees under S. 104A(4) of the Act. The Act envisages that the State Government or the Officer of the State Government not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer is competent to purchase or transport any black-wood or bile trees or timber grown inthe private estate under S, 104A(4) of the Act. The price of such tree or timber has to be specified by the State from time to time and pricing is condit...
Mr. J. Robert Vs. Mr. Ram Jethmalani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1907
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Petition the three petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Chief Electoral Officer, Karnataka, dismissing their appeal presented under Section 24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with Rule 27 of the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, against the order of the Electoral Registration Officer, No. 84, Shantinagar Assembly Constituency, Bangalore, including the name of the first respondent in the voters' list of that constituency and have also sought for the issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto determining the right of the first respondent to continue as a Member of Rajya Sabha from the State of Karnataka.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these: In the first week of March 1988, the Election Commission of India announced the holding of elections to fill four seats to the Rajya Sabha from the State of Karnataka. The last date for nomination fixed was 15-3-1988. The election was scheduled to be held on 28-3-1988....
Society of Sisters of Charity, St. Gerosa Convent
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1990
Reported in: II(1991)DMC95; ILR1990KAR2882
Venkatachala, J.1. Petitioners in G & W. C. No. 17/89, on the file of the Court of I Additional Civil Judge at Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, have presented this appeal feeling aggrieved by an order made therein on 30-6-1989 refusing to grant the application made under Sections 7, 10, 17 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 ('the Act'), respecting guardianship of two minor children.2. Mr. Urbana Cerantola and Mrs. Mariella Lunardon Cerentola are husband and wife of Italian nationality and domicile. While the former is the Head Master and Teacher of a State Secondary School, the latter is a Teacher in a Lower Secondary School, both residing in their own residential villa composed of three floors and 15 rooms at 41, Mons, Rodolfi, 36061 Bassano del Grappa (Vicenza), Italy. Their annual income is said to be of the order of Lire 63,163,603, its equivalent in Indian Rupees being of the order of 6,60,000-00. The husband aged 46 years and the wife aged 40 years though are said to be fond...
M.R. Rajasekharappa Vs. H.N. Siddananjappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2303
Held:(i) The legal position is that the joint and undivided family is the normal condition of Hindu Society. An undivided family is not only joint in estate but also in food and worship. The existence of joint estate is not essential requisite to constitute a joint family and a family which does not own any property may nevertheless be joint. The presumption of union is the greatest in the case of father and sons. The strength of presumption necessarily varies in every case. But the presumption is strong in the case of brothers.(ii) It is settled law that the proof of existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that it possesses joint property. The property held by a member of a joint family cannot also be presumed to be the joint family property. In a suit for partition, a party who claims that any item of suit property is joint family property, the burden of proving that it is so, rests on the part, who asserts it. However, in a case where it is established that the ...
Guruputrappa Mallappa Harkuni Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3020
K.A. Swami, J1. I.A.II is allowed. Delay in filing the application (I.A.No.ll) is condoned.I.A.III is allowed. The order dated 28-2-1990 is re-called, Writ Appeal is restored. It is also heard for final disposal.This appeal is preferred against the order dated 7th November, 1985 passed in Writ Petition 11238 of 1984. The appellant was the petitioner. The respondents in this appeal were also the respondents in the Writ Petition. Therefore, in this appeal the appellant will be referred to as the petitioner.2. In the Writ Petition the petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 23-6-1934 passed by the Tahsildar, Bailhongal In WTN/Misc/SR-197. By the aforesaid impugned order the Tahsildar held that the alienation of the land bearing Survey No. 187/2, measuring 13 acres 21 guntas situated at Anigoal village governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') made on 4-12-1982 under a registered sale deed was invalid, inas...
Rajiv Kundra Vs. University of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1995
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. The petitioner, who belongs to a London based family, came to India for 'education' in M.S. Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore, which is affiliated to Bangalore University. He was admitted to the college as a student of medicine leading to a degree In M.B.B.S. He joined the college in 1985, His quest for education started on an uneven keel and did not run smooth as he planned it to be. After initial 'break-through' in the first year examination, it appears he was caught on the wrong foot after the second year examination. Though he claims to have passed in the first year M.B.B.S. examination in all the subjects, subsequent discovery during the course of the pendency of the Writ Petition points the other way. What really brought more information on the adventure of the petitioner is the withdrawal of the marks card from him by the Bangalore University. The pugnacious submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner starting with a bang and ending in a whimper...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›