Karnataka Court August 1990 Judgments
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Mrs. C.D. Muthanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR461(KAR); [1991]187ITR461(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ487
Chandrakatraj Urs. J. 1. This petition is by the Revenue seeking an order of this court directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, to make a reference under section 26(2) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to this petition are these : One Koravanda Muthanna gifted certain immovable properties to his four daughters and two grandsons by a deed of gift dated October 29, 1977, which was duly registered on November 7, 1977. In the deed of gift, there were recitals that the donees had been put in possession of the immovable properties gifted, on March 29,1977, itself. The donor, in his return under the Gift-tax Act for the assessment year 1978-79, included the value of the estate gifted together with the appurtenant properties valued at Rs. 5,26,276. That came to the conclusion that, having regard to the nature of the gift, the Gift-tax Officer ought to have treated the gift as falling for asses...
Tag this Judgment!N.V. Bagi Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: [1991]83STC449(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This revision petition under section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is directed against the order dated December 27, 1987, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum, as at annexure D and the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated August 29, 1989, in Sales Tax Appeal No. 253 of 1988. 2. The facts relating to the impugned orders may be stated briefly and they are as follows : The appellant is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He was transporting the goods within Belgaum city limits in a delivery vehicle and when the same was checked by intercepting the vehicle the appellant produced form No. 39 which was required to be carried in the vehicle transporting the goods in accordance with the requirement of sub-section (2) of section 28-A of the Act and which was incomplete in material details inasmuch as it did not contain the specifications wh...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmuga Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1990
Reported in: [1993]91STC100(Kar)
ORDERM.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. Of the several questions formulated in this sales tax revision petition, Mr. Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioner, has addressed arguments before us pressing question No. 2. It is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in relying upon the electricity consumption for estimating the turnover of groundnut oil and groundnut oil-cake ?' 2. Briefly stated facts are these : The assessing authority, for the assessment year April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973, did not accept the books of accounts and the invoices produced by the petitioner-assessee, inter alia, on the ground that there was no proper account of purchases said to have been made from agriculturists unsupported by any voucher and only weighment bills were produced without correspondent invoices. In that circumstance he was compelled to reject the books of account and other documents produced in support of the return filed and to ma...
Tag this Judgment!H.P. Veeresh Vs. Smt. Channabasamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Kant95; ILR1990KAR3891
1. The appellant was plaintiff before Munsiff, Chitradurga in Original Suit No. 359 of 1980. He sought for a declaration that he is the joint owner of the suit properties along with his adoptive mother the defendant and permanent injunction to restrain her from alienating or disposing of the suit properties. The suit was decreed in the first Court in favour of the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the defendant came to be allowed and thereby the suit stands dismissed. It is against this judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Chitradurga that the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 2. The following facts are undisputed in this appeal. The suit properties formerly belonged to Panchaksharappa the husband of defendant who died on 14-5-1970, At the time of death of Panchaksharappa there was no other coparcener in his family and the only heir left by him was his wife the defendant and that she succeeded to her deceased husband in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiff was adopte...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen of Karnataka Agro Proteins Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Agro Proteins Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR216]; ILR1991KAR244
1. The General Secretary, Employees Union of Karnataka Agro Proteins Ltd. (K.A.P.L.), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction directing the respondents to transfer the ownership of the first respondent to the 3rd respondent subject to the third respondent absorbing and continuing the service of the workers working in the first respondent company at Raichur and the registered office at Bangalore. 2. The first respondent is a body corporate incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. 1956. The Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. (K.A.I.C.), the Karnataka Agro Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. (K.S.I.I.D.C.) and some financial institutions hold shares of the first respondent. 3. The Government of Karnataka by its Notification No. CI 119 PUM 88(1) dated December 2-5, 1988 has declared the first respondent company as 'Relief Undertaking' for a period of two y...
Tag this Judgment!Channaveerappa Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Rent Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4078; 1990(2)KarLJ253
ORDERHakeem, J.1. The petitioner, who is a tenant in occupation of the premises No. CTS 1935/1956 has challenged the validity of the order passed by the Rent Controller directing his eviction from the premises under Section 21B of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act).2. Shivappa -- respondent-2 is an Ex-Serviceman. On the basis of a Certificate issued by his Commanding Officer to the effect that he is discharged from Air Force Service and that he has no other accommodation of his own in Gadag Town, he claimed possession or the premises under Section 21B of the Act. The Rent Controller having accepted the said certificate and the averments in the application directed eviction of the petitioner.3. The only question that arises for consideration is regarding jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to pass an order under Section 218 of the Act. Section 21B which comes, under Part-V of the Act pertaining to the Control of eviction of tenants and obligation of landlords, reads thus:'21...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Subramani and anr. Vs. A. Thomas Ross and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ97; 1990(2)KarLJ319
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These two appeals are disposed of by the following common order as they arise out of the same judgment and award of the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in M.V.C. No. 135 of 1985.2. M.F.A No. 531 of 1988 is by the owners of motor vehicle bearing registration mark MYC 3993. Aggrieved by the liability foisted on them jointly and severally to the exclusion of the liability of the insurance company which was the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. M.F.A No. 1068 of 1990 is by one of the victims of the accident, aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded as contended by him.3. The undisputed facts may be stated and they are as follows: The petitioner appellant in M.F.A No. 1068 of 1990 in the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pleaded that while he and his brother-in-law were standing near the compound of the building o...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Ganga Vs. Jabbar Khan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ901; 1990(2)KarLJ362
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The girl who was the victim of the accident has been awarded under the general heading for suffering and pain a sum of Rs. 28,000/-. It has been in evidence that she was attending the dancing school and that she was interested in learning Bharatnatyam. About this, the only evidence available was that of her father and the victim herself. They have been examined as PWs 1 and 2. But it is also in evidence that she continued to attend the dancing class, though the medical evidence was that she was suffering 20 to 25 per cent disability in her left lower leg. This is an apparent contradiction if that much of disability was there, she could not have continued to attend the dancing class.2. Therefore, on the admission made by the father of the victim, we do not find that the award under the head general damages for pain and suffering is on the lower side and calls for enhancement.3. Mr. P.L. Kumaraswamy, learned counsel, however, stressed that the injury has re...
Tag this Judgment!Somashekarappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Kant206; 1992CriLJ1318; 1991(1)KarLJ207
ORDER1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings initiated by the II Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore City in C.C. No. 9126/88 and now pending in C.C. No. 464/88, on the file of M.M. IV Court, Bangalore. The notice of the petition was given to the State and the learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the State.2. I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides fully and perused the records of the case.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued as follows:That the learned Magistrate has issued process against the petitioner when there is no case made out against him. The petitioner was not entrusted with the duties of checking of feeder box and therefore he cannot be said to be a person liable to be summoned for an offence punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. due to the burn injuries caused to the child witness by the hanging wire of a feeder box. Under Section 82 of Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 no prosecution can be launched for...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore University Vs. B.V. Om Prakash
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2820; 1990(2)KarLJ365
ORDERMohan, C.J.1.This Writ Appeal presents up a problem which requires the attention of the educationists or perhaps the immediate attention of educationists since the malice of mass-copying is spreading like cancer. With these prefatory remarks, we proceed to state the matrix of facts.2. Om Prakash, the respondent herein, is III Year B.A. student of Bangalore University. He took the said examination and completed all papers excepting History III paper. That examination was held on 4th of April, 1990. It was cancelled on the report of the University Squad. Again on 7-5-1990, on the date of re-examination, the respondent went to take the examination with a fond hope of completing. However, as fate could have for him, the Flying Squad found mass copying including incriminating chits recovered in the examination hall. As a result, the examination on 7-5-1990 was cancelled.3. Thereafter, the respondent requested the University to hold fresh examination in History III Paper. He represented...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »