Karnataka Court December 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.
Dandappa Rudrappa Hampali and Others Vs. Renukappa Alias Revanappa and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant148; ILR1993KAR1182; 1993(1)KarLJ138
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. This appeal is by defendants 1 to 8 and 17. The first respondent is the plaintiff. The suit is one for partition on the ground that all the properties described in the schedule to the plaint belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff, the first defendant, 9th defendant and 13th defendant as well as the children of some of the defendants.2. To appreciate the facts, it is necessary to note that Rudrappa was the father of the plaintiff, the first defendant, 9th defendant and 13th defendant. The plaintiff asserted that the joint family earlier represented by Rudrappa had some properly and family business and he died in the year 1936. The Hindu undivided family continued even after his death enjoying the joint family properties and that the family business was extended at Hirekerur, Shimoga and Haramagatta. According to the plaint, a capital of over Rs. 2 1/2 lakhs has been invested for the business. The plaint also asserts that out of the joint family busine...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.M. Muthaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Kar)153; [1993]202ITR508(KAR); [1993]202ITR508(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1982-83, the following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the income of Rs. 1,99,970 arising in Malaysia was not liable to be included in the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83 ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and resident in India. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83, which is now under consideration, the assessee had earned income in Malaysia and had claimed it as exempt from tax in India in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance agreement between India and Malaysia. The Income-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee; he included the income earned by the assessee in Malaysia in the total income of the asses...
Gokuldas Exports Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Kar)47; [1993]200ITR401(KAR); [1993]200ITR401(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In these two references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the common question referred for out consideration reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that weighted deduction under section 35B was not available in respect of the expenditure incurred for samples sent abroad ?' 2. These references are in respect of the assessment years 1882-83 and 1981-82, respectively. The statement of the case referred to us states that the assessee is a firm carrying on the business of sale of ready-made garments. To promote export trade, the assessee had sent samples abroad. The samples had been sent for the sake of advertisement, which involved certain expenditure. 3. The question, therefore, is whether this expenditure deserves to be treated under Section 35B of the Act. 4. Two sub-clauses of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act are necessary to appreciate the question. As per...
Bangaramma Vs. Nanjamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR230; 1993(1)KarLJ116
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.3.1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 21709/1990.2. The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition, therefore, the petitioners in the Writ Petition have come up in the Appeal. During the pendency of the Appeal respondent No.2 expired therefore, his legal representatives have been brought on record and they have also been served with the notice.3. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners/appellants sought for quashing the order dated 18.2.1989 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bangalore District in Case No.O.S. /Ex.No. 3/88-89. They have also sought for quashing the order dated 16.8.1990 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 193/1989. Both the orders have been produced as Annexures A and B in the Writ Petition.4. The matter arises under the following circumstances:There was Original Suit No. 71 of 19S2 filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore (Rur...
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board Vs. Dr. T.K. Puttaswamy Gowd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR278; 1993(1)KarLJ122
N.D.V. Bhat, J.1. In this Appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 8th November 1991 passed in Writ Petition No.2227 on 985.2. In the said Writ Petition the respondent had challenged the order dated 23,2.1984 passed by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') under Rule 8 read with Rule 9(2)(c) of K.C.S.(C.C.A.) Rules, 1957. By the said order the instant respondent was dismissed from service.3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Appeal briefly stated are as below:The instant respondent was appointed by the Board before 1981 as a part time Medical Officer. Subsequently, in the year 1981 he was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Dispensary belonging to the Board at T.G. Halli. The instant respondent was appointed on the specific condition that he should stay as a resident in the quarters allotted to the Medical Officer. However it was noticed in due course of time that the...
B.C. Narayan Vs. Vijayanagar Syndicate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1120; 1993(2)KarLJ103
ORDERVasanthakumar, J 1. On 18.6.1992 a Common Order was passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 275/91, 277/91, 278/91 and 279/91. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of Judgments and decrees passed in S.C.No.1518/86, 1415/86, 1416/86 and 1414/86. 2. The petitioners who are defendants in the Small Cause Suits have sought review of the Common Order dated 18.6.1992 passed by this Court and they are numbered as Civil Petitions 530/92, 531/92, 532/92 and 533/92. Since questions raised by the petitioners in all the Civil Petitions referred above are common, it is proposed to pass a Common Order. Points formulated for Review being:- 1. Scope of Section 69(1) and (2) of Indian Partnership Act which is mandatory has not been properly applied to the facts in these cases and declaration of law, by the Supreme Court on this point has not been adverted by this Court while passing the impugned orders. 2. Substantive law must give precedence to procedural law, and as such mandat...
A.V. Krishna and Others Vs. Karnataka Leasing and Commercial Corporati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1992
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas493(Kar); ILR1993KAR338; 1993(2)KarLJ185
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The learned company judge referred the matter for consideration of the question by a Division Bench in view of certain conflict of opinions expressed earlier in another similar matter. 2. This is a company petition under section 433(e) and (f), read with sections 434(1)(e) and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). All the petitioners are the creditors of the first respondent company is unable to pay its debts and that the company is commercially insolvent. 3. The office raised an objection that though a joint petition by 40 petitioners is maintainable, separate sets of court-fee shall be paid in respect of each of the creditors. 4. In another matter, earlier in Srikantaiah (K. S.) v. Manjog Consultancy Service P. Ltd. (C. P. No. 54 of 1989, decided on May 11, 1989) initially several creditors field a company petition under section 433(e) of the Act. The office raised an objection that several creditors cannot file a single petition. This obje...
S.D. Muniswamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR399(KAR); [1993]202ITR399(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In respect of the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 the following question has been referred for our consideration under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case whether the partial partition claimed by the assessee is valid in law ?' 2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family consisting of S. D. Muniswamy, his wife and a minor son, Mahesh. The family owned several properties and the karta, Muniswamy, claimed that the was partial partition on November 1, 1972. The document evidencing the same dated November 9, 1972, was furnished to the Revenue. Initially, the Income-tax Officer accepted the case of the assessee that there was a partial partition and one item of the family property was allotted to the share of the minor son and seven items of properties were allotted to the share of Muniswamy and the family jewellery was allotted to the she of Muniswamy's wife. There was no reference to the...
State of Karnataka Vs. M/S Kannika Stores, Mysore and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)KarLJ48
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. The complainant Drugs Inspector prosecuted respondents herein under various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940, the most material among these provisions being Sections 18(a) and 18(c) of the Act. A-1 is the name of the shop whereas A-2 is the Proprietor. A-3 the father of A-2 was present when the complainant visited the shop. Business was being carried out in this shop at Mysore in provisions and other articles and not in drugs. On 4-4-1982 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant is said to have inspected this shop along with two panchas P.Ws. 2 and 3 and he found huge stocks of drugs, stocked and exhibited for sale along with other saleable items on the racks. He took samples out of them of Penicillin Eye Ointment, Novalgin and Analgin drugs and not others. He subjected them for chemical analysis and got a report as per Ex. P.17. Copy of the report was sent to the accused within the time prescribed under the Act and thereafter complaint came to be filed....
P. Gopala Shastry Vs. Food Corporation of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR328; 1993(1)KarLJ111; (1993)ILLJ1076Kant
ORDERK. Jagannath Shetty, J.1. This writ petition is referred to the Division Bench by the learned single Judge, Justice Rajendra Babu, J. under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. 2. The question involved in the writ petition for our consideration is short and simple 'Whether the Food Corporation of India, respondent No. 1 herein, had power and authority to treat the Dearness Allowance (D. A) upto 320 points of twelve months average ... of All India Average Consumer Index for Industrial Workers (General) (1960-100) as on January 1, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPI') to its employees working in Bangalore, which is classified as 'A' Class City and pay such allowances at the rate payable to the Central Government employees.' 3. The conspectus of facts are that the petitioner is an employee of the first respondent Corporation and is working at Regional Office of the Food Corporation of India, Bangalore. The first respondent is a statutory Corporation created by the Government ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »