Karnataka Court August 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.
Virayya Vs. Shiddayya Irayya Ghanthimath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1991
Reported in: I(1994)DMC404; ILR1992KAR2172
B. Jagannatha Hegde, J. 1. Appellant-plaintiff Virayya filed O.S.No. 10/1978 before the Civil Judge, Gadag, for partition and possession of his 1/2 share in the suit properties. The suit was dismissed on 6.8.1979. The plaintiff challenged this Judgment in R.A.No.41/1979 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Dharwad. This appeal also came to be dismissed on 31.7.1982. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal.2. The following geneology which is not disputed shows the relationship of the parties; Shiddalingayya ------------------------------------------------------ / / Irayya (died in 1957) Nagayya (died in 1917) / ----------------------------- / / Siddayya Virupaxayya (Deft. 1) (Deft. 2) / ------------------------------------------------------------------ / / / / Basayya Nagayya Sangayya Veerayya (Deft.3) (Deft.4) (Deft.5) (Plaintiff)As stated, the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/2 share alleging ...
Chandrashekarappa Vs. Basavannappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant247; 1992(1)KarLJ120
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The appellant was the petitioner before the lower Court who filed an election petition under Section 21 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short), whereby he challenged the election held to the town municipal council Mulgund in which the petitioner was a candidate. Respondents 1 to 4 were declared as elected to the town municipal council in the elect ion held on 29-4-1990 and the results were declared on 30-4-1990. For the purpose of this appeal it is necessary to go into the grounds urged in support of the election petition.2. The election petition was presented on 14-5-1990 before the Vacation District Judge, Darwar, since the Court of Civil Judge was not functioning in view of the summer vacation. Under Section 21(1) the election petition has to be filed within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. The District Judge having received the election petition, after holding that he was competent to receive t...
Vidyavathi Kapoor Trust Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)99CTR(Kar)269; ILR1991KAR3414; [1992]194ITR584(KAR); [1992]194ITR584(Karn)
S. Mohan, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment of our learned brother Rajasekhara Murthy J., dated April 19, 1991, rendered in Writ Petition No. 6655 of 1991. 2. We will refer to the facts in Writ Appeal No. 1318 of 1991 : Appellant entered into an agreement on November 28, 1990, with the third respondent for sale of an immovable property known as Mohan Buildings situate at Nos. 775 to 809, Old Taluk Cutchery Road, Chickpet, Bangalore. Both the appellant and the third respondent, i.e., the transferor and the transferee, filed Form No. 37-I prescribed by the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), framed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with the appropriate authority on November 30, 1990. The appropriate authority, by exercising power under section 269UD(1) of the Act, passed an order on January 24, 1991, directing the purchase of the said immovable property by the Central Government and holding that the prope...
Bahri Steel Wires Vs. Additional Commercial Tax Officer and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: [1992]84STC418(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The main contention raised by the petitioners involves the effect and interpretation of sub-item (xv) of item (iv) in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Central Act') as well as item 2(xv) of the Fourth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the State Act'). Section 14 of the Central Act declares the goods stated therein as goods of special importance in inter-State trade and as per section 15 of the said Act, the sales tax law of a State shall not impose or authorise the imposition of a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, at a rate exceeding the rate stated in section 15; further, where a tax has been levied under the State law in respect of the declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, and tax has been paid thereon under the Central Act in respect of the sale of such goods, the tax levied under the State law shall be reimbursed to the person making such sa...
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Shanmugam and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3382; 1991(3)KarLJ415; (1992)IILLJ265Kant
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Since the facts and the points of law involved in both the appeals are common, both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment. The parties are referred to as the management and the workman in this judgment. 2. The order under challenge in both the appeals is the one passed by the learned single Judge on July 19, 1989, in Writ Petition No. 1480 of 1986. Writ Appeal No. 1961 of 1989 was filed by the management challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judges who had agreed with the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, rejecting the application field by the management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approval of the order of dismissal of the workman, whereas, Writ Appeal No. 77 of 1990 was filed by the workman challenging the correctness of the liberty given by the learned single Judge to the management to take such action against the workman from the stage at which the...
Gurupriya Tele Auto (P) Ltd. Vs. Supdt. of Central Excise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: 1992(37)ECC62; 1992(58)ELT361(Kar); ILR1992KAR605
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of the goods referred by the petitioner as 'Telephone Dial' for telephone apparatus/instrument. The question raised in this Writ Petition involves the interpretation of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act for short). 2. The petitioner had filed classification list of the goods for approval under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules for short). In the list the petitioner classified the goods in question as falling under Chapter 85 sub-heading 8548 of the Central Excise Tariff Act of India, 1985. The petitioner had filed a series of such lists. The first one is dated 28th February, 1986 (Annexure-A) to be effective from the said date; second list (Annexure-B) was filed to be effective from 1-3-1986; third list (Annexure-C) was filed to be effective from 1-4-1986 and the fourth list (Annexure-D) was filed to be effective from 2-4-1986. In all these lists the goods in question was cl...
Bhiriya and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: [1992]85STC168(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner in this revision petition is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). The question involved pertains to the assessment period July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986. The petitioner questions the levy of sales tax under section 5(1) of the Act on the turnover relating to pens costing less than Rs. 10 per piece (for the sake of convenience these pens are referred hereinafter as the 'low priced pens', in contradiction to pens costing Rs. 10 and above per piece). 2. Section 5 of the Act levies tax either on the sale or purchase as the case may be, of any goods by a dealer, as stated under the various sub-sections of section 5. As per section 5(1) every dealer shall pay tax on his taxable turnover at the rate of the prescribed percentage of such turnover. This prescribed rate was 7 per cent during the relevant period. The proviso to the said sub-section imposes a lower rate of tax in respect of cer...
K. Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3283; 1991(3)KarLJ463
Hanumanthappa, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the Order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5715 of 1983 on 14-1-1991. The petitioner and 2 others, viz., (i) B. Laxman Devadiga and (ii) Haridas, filed Writ Petitions Nos. 5715 to 5717 of 1983.2. The case of the appellant and the other Writ Petitioners is that at the time of their initial appointments, they were under-graduates. Subsequently, they became graduates. Pursuant to the Government Order, they were given incentive benefits, viz., additional increments. All of a sudden, by a subsequent order the said benefit was not only discontinued but also they were even called upon to reimburse the amount drawn by them as additional increment with retrospective effect. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by his order dated 14-1-1991 allowed the said Writ Petitions in part holding that the additional increments paid to the petitioners therein upto 25-4-1981 are not recoverable from them and further hol...
Chandrasekharappa Vs. Basavannappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3515
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The appellant was the petitioner before the lower Court who filed an Election Petition under Section 2 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short), whereby he challenged the election held to the Town Municipal Council, Mulgund in which the petitioner was a candidate. Respondents 1 to 4 were declared as elected to the Town Municipal Council in the election held on 29-4-1990 and the results were declared on 30-4-1990. For the purpose of this Appeal it is unnecessary to go into the grounds urged in support of the Election Petition.2. The Election Petition was presented on 14-5-1990 before the Vacation District Judge, Dharwar, since the Court of Civil Judge was not functioning in view of the summer vacation. Under Section 21(1) the Election Petition has to be filed within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. The District Judge having received the Election Petition, after holding that he was competent to receive the...
Muniyappa Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3504; 1991(3)KarLJ466
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. Muniyappa, the petitioner herein, is a purchaser of 4 acres 9 guntas of land in Sy.No. 266 situated in Bellur Village, Kolar Taluk and District, by a registered Sale Deed dated 20-1-1966 from respondent-4 and three others for a sum of Rs. 700/- and ever since the date of sale, he has been in possession and enjoyment of it. It is stated that subsequently he invested certain sum of money for the improvement of the land by digging a well and instating a pump set.2. The petitioner was not aware of any dispute in respect of this land until he received a notice from the Tahsildar, respondent-2 herein some time in the year 1980.3. The matter arises this way:The petitioner purchased the land on the belief that it was granted in favour of Ekasi Nanjappa, father of respondent-4, by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, by his order dated 4-11-1962. According to the petitioner, this land along with other lands came to be regranted by the Deputy Commissioner by his order, Annex...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »