Karnataka Court January 1993 Judgments
Mamatha Vs. Vishnu Auto Finances
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1276
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the trial Court under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, against the order dated 4.4.1990 passed by the learned XI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in S.C.No. 5662/88 dismissing the suit of the petitioner as time-barred.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents fully and perused the records of the case.3. The petitioner filed the suit against the respondents for the return of the deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- along with interest accrued thereon. In response to the publication of the respondents inviting deposits from the public, the petitioner through her mother Smt. B.P.Geethalakshmi, deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- under deposit receipt No. F.D.R.073 dated 3.3.1982 initially for three years carrying interest at the rate of 18% P.A. and thereafter the defendants agreed to hold the same as deposit and ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rajagopala Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR562; 1993(1)KarLJ440
ORDERK.A. Swami, Ag. C.J. 1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 19th January 1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 2210 of 1993. The learned Single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition and therefore, the petitioner in the Writ Petition has come up in Appeal.2. In the Writ Petition, the appellant sought for quashing the Notification dated 12.3.1976 published in Official Gazette on 3rd May 1976 bearing No. HSA 61/74-75 issued under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant-petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No. 116 of Nagalala village which was acquired under the Act. As a result of the publication of Notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, the land in question has vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances as per the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act.3. It is contended on beh...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Pai, B.R. Shetty, Biyar Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. and Smt. Asha B. Shetty ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: [1993]78CompCas312(Kar); (1993)115CTR(Kar)292; ILR1993KAR709
D.P. Hiremath, J. 1. The petitioners herein have challenged the legality of the complaint filed by the respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessments), against them for various offences under the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Special Court for Economic Offences at Bangalore. A-1 is a private limited company, A-2 and A-3 are its directors and A-4, a chartered accountant, auditing their accounts. They are alleged to have committed offences under sections 276C and 277 read with sections 278B and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During verification of the accounts submitted by them for the assessment year 1985-86 for the period ending on March 31, 1985, it was revealed that a false claim regarding depreciation on buildings in a sum of Rs. 1,35,480 was made by the company and investment allowance amounting to Rs. 5,30,506 was also claimed which A-1 could not have done. Similarly, there was fabrication of false evidence regarding commissioning of the intermix before March 31, ...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Pai, B.R. Shetty, Biyar Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. and Smt. Lasha B. Shett ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: [1993]200ITR717(KAR); [1993]200ITR717(Karn)
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. The petitioners herein have challenged the legality of the complaint filed by the respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessments), against them for various offences under the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Special Court for Economic Offences at Bangalore. A-1 is a private limited company, A-2 and A-3 are its directors and A-4, a chartered accountant, auditing their accounts. They are alleged to have committed offences under s 276C and 277 read with s 278B and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During verification of the accounts submitted by them for the assessment year 1985-86 for the period ending on March 31, 1985, it was revealed that a false claim regarding depreciation on buildings in a sum of Rs. 1,35,480 was made by the company and investment allowance amounting to Rs. 5,30,506 was also claimed which A-1 could not have done. Similarly, there was fabrication of false evidence regarding commissioning of the intermix before March 31, 1985, to entitl...
Tag this Judgment!Madhur Trading Co. and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR594
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Taxability under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short), is the question to be considered in all these petitions. The common question is whether the dealer who purchased timber in circumstances in which no sales tax was charged under section 5, is liable to pay tax on the said purchase price under section 6, because the timber purchased by him is cut or sawn by him, into sizes, logs, planks, rafters, etc., for purposes of sale. 2. The State contends that when timber is converted into logs, sizes, etc., a new product emerges and timber is consumed in the manufacture of the new products. Section 6 to the extent relevant to consider the rival contentions read as follows : 'Section 6. Levy of purchase tar under certain circumstances. - Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 5, every dealer who in the course of his business purchases any taxable goods in circumstances in which no tax under section 5 is leviable...
Tag this Judgment!Gurappa Reddy Vs. Kalappa Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1350; 1993(2)KarLJ90
Hanumanthappa, J. 1. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these I.As are detailed as under-Regular First Appeal No, 18/1983 had arisen out of the Judgment and decree passed by the XIV Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore, in 3065/1980 dated 27.7.1982. Sri Gurappa Reddy was the plaintiff in the said suit and he filed a suit against one Sri Kalappa Reddy for declaration and possession of the suit property. The said suit was instituted on 23.3.1974. After contesting the said suit for declaration and possession a Judgment and decree was passed on 27.7.1982. Hence, on 2.11.1982 R.F.A.No.18/1983 was filed in this Court by Sri Gurappa against Sri Kalappa Reddy. 2. Sri Kalappa Reddy died on 17.10.1982 that was during the pendency of the said appeal. On 17.11.1983 Gurappa Reddy filed an application to bring on record the widow of Kalappa Reddy and his sons as L.Rs. stating that except these three there are no other L.Rs. On 31.5.1984 the said application was allowed. Accordingly, the...
Tag this Judgment!Shabib Jan Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR587
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In this batch of Writ Petitions the petitioners questioned the Constitutional validity of Section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, ('the State Act' for short) Under this provision purchase tax is levied on the purchases made by the petitioners under circumstances in which no tax was levied on the sales resulting in the purchases by the petitioners. According to the petitioners the State Legislature has no competence to enact Section 6 of the State Act for the reasons stated by the Supreme Court in GOOD-YEAR INDIA LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR., ETC. ETC., 76 STC 71 According to the petitioners the charge under Section 6 is attracted when the purchased goods are either consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise or the purchased goods are disposed of in any manner other than by way of sale in the state or the said goods are despatched to a place outside the State except as a direct result of inter-state sale. Some of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Annapurna Industries and Another Vs. Syndicate Bank and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Kant279; ILR1993KAR1081; 1993(1)KarLJ519
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27-8-1992 passed in Execution Case No. 118 of 1987 by the learned Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, rejecting the application tiled under O. 21, R. 90, IPC and ordering confirmation of the sale held by the Court on 24-4-1992 under 0.21 R. 92. CPC.2. Judgment-debtors 1 and 2 in Execution No. 118, 87 are the appellants before this Court. Respondent No. 1 -- Syndicate Bank. Bhadravathi Branch filed O.S. 117 87 against the appellants and three others for recovery of loans advanced on the security of land of mo acres with the buildings with the rice mill, poova mill and machineries in Hebbandi village of Bhadravathi Taluk in Shimoga District. The appellants and respondents 3 to 5 consented for a decree and the suit was decreed for Rs. 3,96,221.80 with interest. It appears respondenl-1 Bank obtained similar decrees on the same property in three more suits in O.S. Nos. 118 of 1987, 119/87 and O.S. 120 87 on the file of the same court. The total liabi...
Tag this Judgment!Nitco Construction Materials (P.) Ltd. Vs. Shree Venkateswara Engineer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1993
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas80(Kar); ILR1993KAR729; 1993(1)KarLJ404
Murgod, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order dated August 30, 1991, passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore, ordering the return of the plaint for presentation before the proper court. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : Defendant No. 1 was having a contract with International Airports Authority for erecting an airport building at Meenambakkam, Madras. The defendants wanted a sub-contractor for doing the mosaic flooring work at Madras. In that behalf, the appellant was approached. The appellant went to Madras and made an offer. That offer was accepted at Madras by the defendants with a condition that the appellant had to furnish bank guarantee for due performance of the contract. The appellant gave an indemnity bond to his banker at Bangalore and his banker executed a bank guarantee which was transmitted from Bangalore to Madras and at Madras, defendant No. 1 accepted the bank guarantee and permitted the appellant to go ahead with the contract. After...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Sridhar Adiga Vs. Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endow ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR554; 1993(1)KarLJ493
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J.1. At the stage of admission, all the respondents except respondent-5 are served. Notice to respondent-5 is dispensed with as he is not a necessary party to the proceedings. 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 8.10.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23890 of 1992.2.1. The appellant was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. He sought for quashing the order dated 1.8.1992 passed by the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments in Karnataka, respondent-1, bearing No.Rev.PTN.5/92-93 produced as Annexure-H in the Writ Petition.2.2. The learned Single Judge has held that as the enquiry is pending, no interference is called for. Hence the petitioner in the Writ Petition has come up in this appeal.3. It is contended by Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant that the first respondent (Commissioner for Religious and Charitable ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »