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.
H.S. Anantharamiah Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3608
K.A. Swami, Ag. 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 22nd November 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 17th July 1990, passed by the 1st respondent- The Central Board of Direct Taxes ('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 regard to the Decisi...
Mageshwari Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3603
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.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 15th September 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos. 27240 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, 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 the orders of attachment of the properties and bringing them for sale as per Annexures 'L' and 'O' dated 16...
Patel Enterprises Vs. M.P. Ahuja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3772
ORDER 39 RULES 1 & 2 - Prima facie case includes nature of suit and maintainability - No temporary Injunction, if suit not maintainable. One of the factors to be considered by the trial Court while considering the case for temporary injunction is whether prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff. This certainly would include the nature of the suit filed and its maintainability. If, on the face of it, the suit is not maintainable, question of issuing any temporary injunction would not arise. ...
Vittala Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Vs. State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1131; 1992(2)KarLJ109
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J 1. The petitioner has called in question the correctness and validity of the order dated 8.10.1991 (Annexure 'E') under which, the State Government, exercising power under Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, has nominated three persons as Directors to the petitioner-Society.2. Sri S. Krishnaiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, strongly contended that the nomination made under Annexure 'E' nominating three persons is bad in law, inasmuch as, the total number of Directors of the Society is 11 as per the bye-law. The bye-law itself provides for two nominated members and the State Government could nominate one more member. The learned Counsel does not dispute that this is a Society in respect of which, power of nomination could be exercised by the Government only under Section 29. The grievance of the petitioner is that in addition to two nominated members provided in bye-law, if three more members are nominated exercising power u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›