Karnataka Court March 1991 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.
Vishnu Chintaman Shiralkar Vs. Gurupad Shivaram Kelavekar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3851; 1991(2)KarLJ408
ORDERD.P. Hiremath, J.1. The short point for consideration in this Revision Petition is whether even after eviction order was passed by the Rent Control Court against the present revision petitioner his continuation in possession of the petition premises and payment of rent would mount to revival of old tenancy or renewal of tenancy.2. The facts briefly are to be found in the order of the Court below which is now impugned. In Execution Petition No. 60/1980 the Decree Holder-respondent took out execution for eviction of the petitioner in pursuance of the decree he had obtained in HRC 62/1974 before the Court of I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum. The decree is dated 19-11-1974 which was an ex parte decree. The suit filed by the petitioner to set-aside that ex parte decree on the ground that he was misled by the Decree-Holder - landlord or fraud was practised on him was not upheld by the Court. Thus decree for eviction passed on 19-11 -1974 stood. Till 1980 it appears execution was not taken ...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. East India Transport Agencies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas35(Kar); 1991(2)KarLJ409
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This revision under section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act is by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. It presented a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,993.85 from the defendants, East India Transport Agencies, in view of the fact that certain goods insured by the plaintiff for the consignor were not delivered. In that circumstances, the insured issued notice under section 10 of the Common Carriers Act and the insurance company settled the claim in the sum of Rs. 5,093.85 as against the claim of the consignor in the sum of Rs. 6,124.88, and, therefore, the insurer presented the suit. 2. The facts themselves are not in dispute. The suit came to be dismissed on the short ground that the consignor also was not made a party. The plaintiff was also found fault with inasmuch as the cause title disclosed was written by the Regional Manager, while the Deputy Manager had signed and verified the plaint averments. 3. Once the ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hanumakka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: I(1992)ACC183; 1992ACJ687; [1992]75CompCas764(Kar); ILR1991KAR2387; 1991(2)KarLJ277
1. In this appeal presented under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), by the New India Assurance Company Limited, the following question of law arises for consideration. 'Whether section 147(2) of the Act which provides for continuance of the liability of an insurance company as it existed prior to the coming into force of the Act or four months, does not apply to the liability of the insurance company to answer the no fault liability of the owner of the vehicle under section 140 of the Act and, therefore, the no fault liability of the insurance company on and after July 1, 1989, in case of death is Rs. 25,000 ?' 2. The brief facts of the case are these :- A claim petition under section 166 of the Act was presented before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tumkur, claiming compensation for the death of Ramaiah, husband of the first respondent in a motor accident which occurred on July 17, 1987. In the claim petition, a compensation of Rs. 25,000 was als...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR884(KAR); [1992]196ITR884(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The questions that are referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read thus : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has paid compensation for loss of interest to the trust arising on account of late remittance of funds and the late remittance of funds was not due to any wilful act on the part of the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the principles laid down in the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. : [1980]123ITR429(SC) , would apply to the facts of the case and accordingly directing the Income-tax Officer that the deduction of Rs. 2,04,426 be allowed ?' 2. Both the question are actually and substantially the same. 3. The assessee in the instant case failed to pay the contribution under...
M/S. Damle Brothers Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant140; 1991(2)KarLJ86
ORDER1. The Writ Petition is directed against the order of the first respondent dated 4-8-1984 intimated on 21-8-1984 as well as the order dated 3-1-1984 passed by the State of Karnataka vide annexures 'G' and 'C respectively. The petitioner has also sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to consider and grant renewal of mining lease in favour of the petitioner, in accordance with the application vide annexure 'A'.2. This case arises out of the following facts :--The petitioner was granted a mining lease over an area of 9.30 hectares on Pandari River bed in Akrali village, Khanapur Taluq in Belgaum District in respect of moulding sand for a period of 20 years commencing from 7-7-1964. The lease was granted by the second respondent namely, the State of Karnataka. On 31 -1-1983 the petitioner sought renewal of mining lease in accordance with the provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The application was filed 12 months before the e...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahant Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(Kar)200; [1992]193ITR620(KAR); [1992]193ITR620(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on the storage tank ?' 2. The assessee derives income form manufacture of non-edible oil from groundnut cake and rice-bran. Since the production is primarily oil, a storage tank is absolutely necessary for the purpose of the business of the assess. The assessee constructed a tank with mild steel sheets, which is used for the storage of hexane and the manufactured oil. The assessee claimed investment allowance under the provisions of section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, treating the storage tank as 'plant'. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim. This order was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who held that a storage tank cannot be treated as 'plant' or 'machinery'. The Appellate Tribunal, however accepted the contention of the assessee i...
M.S. Ranganayakamma Vs. M.G. Bhashyam (Decd. by Lrs. Smt. Thangam Bhas ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3527; [1992]198ITR157(KAR); [1992]198ITR157(Karn); 1992(1)KarLJ181
N.D.V. Bhat, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated August 7, 1981, passed by the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 7691 of 1980 (Old O.S. No. 331 of 1980).2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under :The plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 7691 of 1980, praying for a decree for partition by metes and bounds and for allotting the half share, preferably the northern half share of the premises of the plaintiff. Among other things, it was alleged by the plaintiff that she purchased the premises - (Old No. 189) - New No. 55, Subbaram Chetty Street, Basavangaudi, Bangalore and that she had given the cash to the defendant who, in turn, issued a cheque to the vendor at the time of purchasing the property. The property was purchased in the joint names of both the plaintiff and defendant since the defendant was the only son of the plaintiff and since the plaintiff wanted to leave the half share to him after...
Sri Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR669(KAR); [1992]193ITR669(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not admitting the assessment order dated October 31, 1977.of the Commercial Tax Officer in evidence and examining the same on merits ?' 2. The assessee produces sugar. The relevant assessment year is 1976-77. The assessment was completed to the best of the Income-tax Officer's judgment on the basis of the materials gathered by him. The Income-tax Officer had obtained the figures pertaining to the turnover of the assessee as available with the Commercial Tax Department. From this, he estimated the gross profit and from that he inferred the taxable income as 25 per cent. of the turnover. The Income-tax Officer also referred to the previous year's assessment records. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and, along with the appeal m...
Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Dattatraya Nagesh Wader
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1899; 1991(2)KarLJ116
Rama Jois, J.1. This Appeal presented under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hidkal Dam Project. Hidkal, is glaring example as to how even when no application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made and the award of the Land Acquisition Officer have become final, the claimants manage to get references on applications made after long lapse of time with the connivance of Land Acquisition Officers and how on such time barred reference applications, awards are being passed overlooking long lapse of time after which reference were received, which on the face of it disclose that the reference applications were barred by time.2. Brief facts of the case, are these: 8 acres 3 guntas of land in Survey No. 66 of Majli village of Hukeri Taluk, was acquired pursuant to a Preliminary Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3-5-1963. After the Final Notification, the Land Acquisition, Officer mad...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Vilas G. Kurbetti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1991
Reported in: [1992]194ITR502(KAR); [1992]194ITR502(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question brought for our consideration under the provisions of the Gift-tax Act reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the relinquishment of a share in the firm consequent on the reconstitution of the firm amounts to a gift or a deemed gift or a deemed gift and is taxable under the Gift-tax Act ?' 2. The question is covered by the decision of this court in D. C. Shah v. CGT : [1982]134ITR492(KAR) . Accordingly, it is held that it is not a gift and not taxable. The question is answered against the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »