Karnataka Court August 1990 Judgments
Bangalore Soft Drinks (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR127(KAR); [1991]187ITR127(Karn); 1990(2)KarLJ385
Chandrakantharaj Urs, J. 1. This petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is filed by the assessee aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, affirmed by the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal and, having failed to obtain a reference by the Tribunal of the questions of law which arise for consideration as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 37(3A) of the Act were attracted with reference to the advertisement expenditure of Rs. 8,21,354 and, accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 1,23,202 was in order (2) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was right in holding that the industrial undertaking for the manufacture of Torino was not a new industrial undertaking and it was the industrial undertaking in existence since long and, accordingly, the provisions of section 37(3D) of the Act did not become applicable ?' 2. The facts may be stated briefl...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Masabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ173; ILR1990KAR3497
Krishnan, J. 1. The appellant-Insurance Company was 4th respondent before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belgaum in M.V.C. No. 175 of 1981 and being aggrieved by the direction of the Tribunal to satisfy the award of Rs. 5,200/- with Court costs and current interest to the claimant therein, in respect of the injuries sustained by her in the accident involving autorickshaw bearing No. MYL 4537, has preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereafter be referred, by virtue of their ranks before the Tribunal.2. The accident is stated to have taken place on 10-12-1980 at 9.30 a.m. On Poona-Bangalore road connecting Khade-bazaar, Belgaum when the autorickshaw driven by respondent-3 in a rash or negligent manner dashed against her and caused fracture. The appellant pleaded before the Tribunal that the driver of the rickshaw did not hold a valid driving licence and therefore it was not liable to make good the compensation. The Tribunal has held that t...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Limited and Another ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant133; ILR1990KAR2975
ORDER1. The petitioners have sought for a declaration that Rule 8 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 providing for levy of Registration fee is ultra vires and unconstitutional and for a declaration that the Bangalore Development Authority has no authority of law to collect application fee for allotment of sites. They have also sought for a direction to respondent-1 to refund to the concerned general public all the amounts received by it in the form of registration fee and application fee under the impugned rule. 2. Under Section 69 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respondent-2 which is the State of Karnataka has framed rules called the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules read as follows :-- '8. REGISTRATION :-- (1) Every applicant for a site shall register his name on payment of registration fees a...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore Vs. Mysore Brewerie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3089
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. In these writ appeals and the S.T.R.P. facts being similar, common questions arise for consideration as to whether the bottle and crate deposits collected by the respondent-dealer formed part of the sale turnover exigible to tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and whether charges for packing materials, charged separately form part of the sale price in view of the provisions of rule 6(4)(ff) of the karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957. In other words whether the judgment of the learned single Judge in Write Petitions Nos. 18690 and 2305 of 1980 holding that such deposits and charges are not exigible to tax, and that the issuance of show cause notices suo motu by the appellant was unwarranted, is sustainable. 2. Since the questions involved in these matters are common they have been heard together and we propose to dispose them of by a common judgment. 3. Writ Appeal Nos. 275 and 276 of 1984 have been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Seshmull M. Shah Vs. Sayed Abdul Rashid
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2857
B.P. Singh, J.1. This Second Appeal has been preferred by defendant No. 1 arising out of the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for declaration of title and possession in respect of suit lands as also damages for the cutting of the Tamarind tree by defendant No. 1. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have concurrently found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, namely, the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Kolar, dated 7-1-1980 in Regular Appeal No. 23/1978, this appeal has been preferred.2. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed:The plaintiff was admittedly the mother-in-law of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 is a purchaser from defendant No. 2 of the suit lands.The case of the plaintiff is that her husband was an Engine Driver and she used to reside with him. By a registered Sale Deed, dated 29th March, 1936, the plaintiff acquired title to the suit lands in consideration of her mehr dues. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: [1991]83STC228(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. Petitioner is Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Bangalore. It is aggrieved by the letter of demand as at annexure R which is dated 3rd November, 1978. Pursuant to annexure R, demand in form 5, under the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 has been issued as at annexure S. Thereafter it has been followed by a further notice proposing to take action against the writ petitioner under sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, if the demand is not met within the specified time therein. Therefore, the writ petition seeking the following reliefs : (a) a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit quashing the demand notices, exhibits R, S and T bearing Nos. 3010206/78-79 issued by the second respondent dated 3rd November, 1978, 31504838/78-79 and assessment No. 31504838/79 issued by the third respondent dated 20th August, 1979 and 20th January, 1980, respectively declari...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rajasekhar Vs. V.N. Roy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2826
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The following are the two questions of law referred to the Full Bench for decision under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act:-1) Whether mortgagee in possession would be a landlord for the purpose of Section 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961? And2) Whether a tenant under him would become statutory tenant? 2. The brier facts leading to this reference are:-The premises is a garage forming portion of a building bearing No. 4, 1st Cross, Kumarapark West, Bangalore-20. It belongs to the 2nd respondent. The first respondent became the tenant under the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent mortgaged with possession the entire ground-floor of the building bearing Corporation No. 4, including the garage with possession in question under registered Mortgage Deed dated 18-5-1979. At the request of the 2nd respondent, the tenancy in respect of the garage portion was attorned by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner-mortgagee.The petitioner filed...
Tag this Judgment!iim Employees Association Vs. Indian Institute of Management
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3148; 1990(2)KarLJ226
Ramachandriah, J 1. This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 2544/89 on the file of the X Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (for short 'the trial Judge') against the order dated 15-9-1989 passed on I.As.II and HI by the learned trial Judge dismissing I.A.II filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent-defendant, their men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of their office room described in the plaint schedule pending disposal of the suit filed by them for perpetual injunction and 'allowing I.A.III filed by the respondent-defendant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. for an order of temporary injunction against the plaintiff in respect of the same room restraining them, their Office-bearers, members, agents etc., from functioning and ceasing to occupy the said room either in groups or in single pending...
Tag this Judgment!Authorised Officer Vs. Venkataraman Bommayya Naik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3936
ORDERRamachandriah, J. 1. Respondent is the registered owner-cum-driver of a Tempo bearing Registration No. CNE 3495. It was seized by the Range Forest Officer, Hiregutti, in the presence of two panch witnesses and his staff at about 2-30 a.m. on 14-12-1988 near a place called Kashigudde on Hillur road near Kumta as 20 cut teak wood pieces measuring in all 34 c.feet or 0.969 cms. were being transported in it without any licence or permit to transport out of the Forest area and, therefore, a forest offence had been committed in respect of the said teak wood pieces. After seizing the teak wood pieces and the Tempo under a mahazar, the Range Forest Officer, Hiregutti reported the matter to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Honavar Division, Honavar, who is also the Authorised Officer under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act'). The said Authorised Officer issued a notice under Section 71-B(1) of the Act to the respondent calling upon hi m to show cause why the seized jeep ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Zubeda Khatoon, Bangalore City Vs. the Assistant Collector of Cus ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1392; 1991(34)ECC87; ILR1991KAR1820
Hiremath, J.1. The accused-appellant was committed to the City Sessions Court by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate of Bangalore city to face the trial for offences under sections 18 and 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short hereafter). The allegations against her were brief and simple. P.W. 1 the Superintendent of the Customs Intelligence, Headquarters Bangalore received an information on 22-7-1986 that Narcotic Drugs were concealed in the house of the appellant in her residence at No. 12, Devanahalli Subbanna Galli, Sadara Patrappa Road. Bangalore and he obtained authorisation for searching the aforesaid premises from his superior officer viz., the Assistant Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore under section 41(i) of the Act and taking two panchas carried or, search in that house at about 8-30 a.m. in the morning. In one of the rooms they found two bags containing 2.5 kgs. and .5 kg Ganja and also 30 grams opium all valued at ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »