Karnataka Court January 1994 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.
P. Krishna Murthy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1994
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Kar)434; [1997]224ITR183(KAR); [1997]224ITR183(Karn)
S.B. Majmudar, C.J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-assesses has brought in challenge the refusal of the assessing authority to grant him exemption from computing taxable income of an amount of Rs. 3,556 being interest subsidy. The assessing authority took the view that as a welfare measure, the company reimbursed the interest paid in excess of the Central Government Employees House Building Advance Rates and the interest reimbursed is assessable to tax under section 17(2)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), since the assessee would have paid even if the employer had not reimbursed it. It was further held that the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, has clarified that the interest subsidy is not taxable when the employer borrows money and in turn advances it to its employees. It was also further held that since the assessee directly borrowed loan from the HDFC, his claim for exemption could not be considered and the interest subsidy rei...
A.P. John and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Transport Corpn. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)KarLJ377; (1995)ILLJ678Kant
ORDERN.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions who are either Drivers or Conductors in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and working in various Divisions have filed these petitions challenging the competency, correctness and propriety of the transfer orders transferring them from one division to another. Since the questions for consideration in all these petitions are almost identical, all the petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order.2. The official status of the petitioners and the power of the Corporation to transfer its employees are not in dispute. The dispute is only in respect of (1) whether there can be a transfer ignoring Clause 14(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement of 1981 (in short the 1981 Settlement); (2) when the seniority of the employees appointed in a Division is maintained by the same Division, whether are they liable to be transferred to another division; (3) when e...
Joshi Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR530; 1994(1)KarLJ524
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.3.1986 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot. By the said order, the Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Hungund allowing the application filed by the instant petitioner under Section 15 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).2. The facts leading to the instant Writ Petition, briefly stated, are as under:The petitioner is a soldier within the meaning of definition under Section 2(31-A) of the Act. He is still in service. According to him, he is the owner of the disputed land. It is not in dispute that the land in question has been a tenanted land and it is the version of the petitioner that he continued the lease in favour of respondent-3 under Section 5 of the Act. The petitioner wanted to resume the land in question under Section 15 of the Act. With that end in view he issued a notice as required under the provisions of...
John Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1337
Hanumanthappa, J.1. The petitioners in all these Petitions who are either Drivers or Conductors in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and working in various Divisions have filed these Petition? challenging the competency, correctness and propriety of the transfer orders transferring them from one Division to another. Since the questions for consideration in all these Petitions are almost identical, all the Petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by a Common Order.2. The official status of the petitioners and the power of the Corporation to transfer its employees are not in dispute. The dispute is only in respect of (1) whether there can be a transfer ignoring Clause 14(c) of the Memorandum of Settlement of 1981 (in short the 1981 Settlement); (2) when the seniority of the employees appointed in a Division is maintained by the same Division, whether they are liable to be transferred to another Division; (3) when enquiries o...
Pushpavathi Bai Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR524; 1994(1)KarLJ542
ORDERRajendra Babu, J1. This Petition is directed against an order made by the Land Tribunal on 5.2.1987 by which the petitioner has been declared to have 3 acres 27 guntas of 'D' class land in excess of the ceiling limit and directed the petitioner to surrender the same in terms of Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The case of the petitioner is that as on 1.3.1974 she did not have any land in excess of the ceiling limit as she possessed only 19 acres 5 guntas of land coming under 'D' class. It is only subsequently under the will of Smt Neelawa, her grand-mother, she having got certain lands as a legatee and the said Neelavva having died on 21.2.1976, the petitioner in terms of Section 66(1)(b) of the Act filed a declaration on 20th July 1977. The Tribunal enquired into the matter and taking into consideration that the family consisted of only two children as on 1.3.1974 and thus including the petitioner and her husband it hel...
K.A. Gundu Rao and Others Vs. Shri Ramanarayana Avadhani and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant217; ILR1994KAR642; 1994(1)KarLJ340
1. The appeal is by the plaintiff now represented by the legal representatives. The first respondent is the first defendant, referred hereinafter either as the contesting respondent or as the first defendant.2. The suit was for a declaration that the firm by name Uday Motor Transport, Shimoga stands dissolved from 23rd February, 1976 or in the alternative to have the firm dissolved by the order of the court. The plaintiff also sought for the appointment of a Receiver to realise the assets for distribution. Other consequential reliefs such as for accounting and for payment of plaintiff's share are also sought for by the plaintiff. There is no dispute regarding basic facts.3. A deed of partnership was executed on 1st February, 1957 at Shimoga between the first defendant, second defendant and the plaintiff. The partnership deed states that the first defendant was carrying on the business in stage carriage transport service in the name and style of Uday Motor Transport and that the other t...
Sri D. Srinivasa Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1994
Reported in: 1994ACJ1151; AIR1995Kant223; ILR1994KAR486; 1994(1)KarLJ335
ORDER1. This appeal is by the appellant being aggrieved by the order made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench on 28-8-1992 in O.A. No. 85/1992 holding that the application of the appellant for compensation under Section 13A(II) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act ('the Act' for short) was not maintainable.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. 3. The case of the appellant is that when he was about to board the Bangalore-Hyderabad Express Train, a heavy iron girder which was loosely and carelessly fixed for electrification work, suddenly fell on the train and thereafter on him causing grievous injuries to him. Therefore, he approached the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation under the provisions of Section 13A(II)of the Act. The Tribunal considering the maintainability of the application under S. 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, (Section 124 of the( present Act, 1989), held that the application was not maintainable and directed the appellant to seek remedy ...
Mahenderkumar Pawankumar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR304; 1994(2)KarLJ357
S.B. Majmudar, C.J. 1. In this Writ Appeal the rejection of the challenge made to the Constitutional validity of Clause 14(d) of the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986 is challenged. Two grievances are voiced. The first grievance is that the said Licensing Order issued under the Essential Commodities Act does not empower the authorities to seize and remove the entire stock of essential commodity if the grievance is made against a part of such stock which according to the authorities is held contrary to the provisions of the Licensing Order. The second grievance is that such seized commodities having not been produced before the concerned Competent Authority within 24 hours, the said inaction on the part of the authorities is illegal.2. The learned Single Judge after hearing the appellant in great detail, considering the first grievance, came to the conclusion that so far as the search, seizure and removal of the stocks of essential commodities are concerned, once con...
D. Srinivasan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC451
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. This Appeal is by the appellant being aggrieved by the order made by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench on 28.8.1992 in O.A. No. 85/1992 holding that the application of the appellant for compensation under Section 13-A(II) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act ('the Act for short) was not maintainable.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.3. The case of the appellant is that when he was about to board the Bangalore Hyderabad Express Train, a heavy iron girder which was loosely and carelessly fixed for electrification work, suddenly fell on the train and thereafter on him, causing grievous injuries to him. Therefore, he approached the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation under the provisions of Section 13-A(II) of the Act. The Tribunal considering the maintainability of the application under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, (Section 124 of the present Act, 1989), held that the application was not maintainable and directed the appell...
Dr. Tammanna Gowda Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant188; ILR1994KAR944; 1994(1)KarLJ315
ORDER1. This petition has been filed by a person who is the owner of a land bearing No.1-29-36 and 36A situate at Gulbara.When the petitioner wanted to construct a garage in November, 1980 in the northeastern portion of the said property when excavation was going on, a box containing gold coins and ornaments was found. The petitioner claims to have brought to the notice of the authorities and also gave a notice as contemplated under Section 3 of the Karnataka Treasure Trove Act,claiming the treasure trove before the Deputy Commissioner. Four persons by name Mirza Javid Ali Baig, Khaiser Ali Baig, Mirza Imam Ali Baig and the petitioner file claims a owner of the treasure trove.The Deputy Commissioner made an order under Section 8 of the Treasure Trove Act on 3rd May,1982,rejecting the claim of the said persons and also the petitioner and held other basis of the report of the Director of the Director of Archaeology made on 1st August, 1981 that the coins were of Bahamani Kingdom and some...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »