Karnataka Court November 1992 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.
Lakshmikanth Vs. Motilal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR149
Murgod, J. 1. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1739 of 1992 is directed against the order dated 20th May, 1992 dismissing I.A.I Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in O.S.No. 3016 of 1992 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore City. 2. Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1801 of 1992 is directed against the Order dated 4-8-1992 passed on l.As. I and III in O.S.No. 2324 of 1992 on the file of VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, allowing I.A.No. 1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and dismissing I.A.III filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. 3. Though the two Appeals arise out of the two suits, the subject matter involved in the two Appeals is one and the same and the contesting parties are common and therefore the two Appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common Order.4. The facts giving rise to these two Appeals are as under: There is an institution called 'Seva Sagar' a service organisation registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 in registr...
Corporation Bank Vs. Mohandas Baliga
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR201; 1993(1)KarLJ308
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J.1. This Appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22nd March, 1990 passed by the learned XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S.No. 10914/85. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,42,639.05 along with future interest and costs from defendants 1 to 3. The trial Court has decreed the suit as against defendants 1 and 2 but it has dismissed it as against defendant No. 3.2. The suit claim was divided into three parts. The first defendant is a proprietory concern. It raised three types of loans from the plaintiff-Bank; (i) A loan of Rs. 15,000/- was raised on 14-7-1981 on overdraft facility with interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum to be compounded on quarterly basis under the over-draft Account No. 4/81. The second defendant was the surety; (ii) The second type of loan was a demand loan of Rs. 22,000/-. For this also the second defendant was a surety. This was operated under demand loan secured Account No. 6/81;...
The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C., Hubli and Another Vs. Gangadhar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant82; ILR1992KAR3787
ORDER1. This civil revision petition by the petitioners, the Divisional Controller and the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation), is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-2-1987 made by the Civil Judge, Haveri, in Misc. Appeal No. 23 of 1985 by which he reversed the order dated 13-8-1985 made by the Munsiff, Haveri, in O.S. No. 42 of 1985, rejecting the application (I. A. No. I) for temporary injunction.2. A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows :--It is not in dispute that the immovable property adjoining the K.S.R.T.C., bus stand at Haveri constructed for the purpose ofrunning a canteen intending to cater to the needs of the travelling public is the property belonging to the Corporation. It is also not in dispute that by virtue of an agreement entered into between the petitioners and the respondent, a licence came to be issued in favour of the respondent to run catering bus...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotel Ayodya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)106; [1993]201ITR1002(KAR); [1993]201ITR1002(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ140
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1981 - 82, the following question has been referred for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee which is doing business of running a hotel is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A in respect of the new machinery installed in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1981-8 ?' 2. The assessee is a hotelier. In respect of certain new machinery installed, the assessee claimed investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. The claim of the assessee was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer and the said view was affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Appellate Tribunal followed its view expressed in another case and held that hotel is an industry entitled to investment allowance. 3. Mr. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the Revenue, strongly relied on the decision of the Kerala...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shaan Finance (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: (1992)109CTR(Kar)209; [1993]199ITR409(KAR); [1993]199ITR409(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ108
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1985-86, the following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, in respect of machinery owned by the assessee, but leased to third parties and used by them for the manufacture of article or thing, investment allowance was allowable under section 32A ?' 2. The assessee is a company. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year, the assessee had acquired machinery. It had been leased on hire purchase basis. The assessee itself had not manufactured any article or thing. The machinery had been used by different persons (lessees) for the purpose of their business of manufacturing. In respect of the machinery, the assessee claimed investment allowance under section 32A. The Income-tax Officer refused the claim on the ground that the assessee had not...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Siddaganga Oil Extractions Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)119; [1993]201ITR968(KAR); [1993]201ITR968(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1983-84, the following questions are referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for our consideration : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80J in respect of hydrogenation plant from which there was a loss although the total income was a positive figure (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for computing the relief under section 80HH, income from lorry hire, weighment charge, miscellaneous receipts, income from fixed deposits, etc., should not be included as they were not income of the industrial undertaking (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that deduction under section 80HH should be allowed in respect of the solvent plant on its incom...
H.S. Anantharamaiah Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)353; [1993]201ITR526(KAR); [1993]201ITR526(Karn)
K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J. 1. At the stage of preliminary hearing, notice was ordered. Accordingly, the respondents have entered appearance through their learned senior standing counsel, Shri H. Raghavendra Rao. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated November 22, 1991, passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 19179 of 1990. Learned single judge has rejected the writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant-petitioner (assessee) has sought for quashing the order No. F. 212/5/90-ITA. II, dated July 17, 1990, passed by the first respondent - the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('the Board' for short), produced as annexure-M in the writ petition. He has also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the assessee and duly assess the return filed for the year 1985-86. 3. Learned single judge has held that, having regards ...
S. Mageshwari Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)301; [1993]201ITR472(KAR); [1993]201ITR472(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ137; [1993]67TAXMAN497(Kar)
K.A. Swami, Actg. J.1. As the appeals lie in a very narrow compass, they are admitted and heard for final disposal. These two appeals are preferred against the order dated September 15, 1992, passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petitions Nos. 27470 and 27471 of 1992. The learned single judge has rejected both the petitions on the ground that the properties which are brought for sale for recovery of the amount due under the assessment orders produced as annexures 'A' and 'A-1' in the writ petition do not belong to the assessee and further the petitioner assesses has filed the objections to the same, and as such, the authorities are required to consider the objections and take appropriate action in accordance with law. But the grievance made by Sri G. Chander Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, is that, in the writ petitions, the petitioner has made two prayers : (1) to quash to orders of attachment of the properties and bringing them for sale as per annexures 'L' and 'O' da...
Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]91STC45(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. These revision petitions filed under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('The Act', for short) govern the assessment years from April 1, 1979 to December 31, 1983. The questions to be considered pertain to the taxability of the components of chemical fertilizer mixtures; deductibility of the value of packing materials and the mode of levying tax on the liquor contained in the bottles, i.e., as to whether bottles are to be taxed along with their contents (liquor) by the rate applicable to 'bottled liquor', irrespective of the terms of the contracts of sale. 2. The petitioner, inter alia, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical fertilizer mixture, falling within entry 48-A(ii) of the Second Schedule to the Act. The Revenue contends that, since the sale or purchase of several components of the chemical fertilizer mixture were not subjected to tax under the Act, they should also be taxed under section 5(1) of the Act, apart from the l...
Saraswathi Ammal Vs. V.C. Lingam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR427; 1993(1)KarLJ196
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The Appeal is by the first defendant, in a suit filed by the 1st respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Plaintiff and 1st defendant entered into an Agreement of Sale on 26.5.1980, whereby, the 1st defendant agreed to sell and plaintiff agreed to purchase a property situated in Bangalore. 1st defendant was already in possession of residential portion of the property; the front portion has two shops which were then tenanted by others. The consideration for sale was Rs. 90,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff at the time of the agreement (Ex.D1). The plaintiff agreed to pay the balance sum of Rs. 80,000/-within six months from the date of the agreement i.e., on or before 26.11.1980; the agreement stated that 1st defendant agreed to sign the sale deed after receiving this balance amount. The plaintiff had to bear the expenses of the sale deed. Plaintiff was already in possession of the house as a tenant and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »