Karnataka Court March 1994 Judgments
V. Verghese and Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1994
Reported in: (1994)121CTR(Kar)164; [1994]210ITR526(KAR); [1994]210ITR526(Karn)
S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. :- The second petitioner is a partnership firm of which the first petitioner is a partner. Both the petitioners are producers of films in Kannada.During the assessment year 1986-87, the second petitioner produced a feature film.It is the case of the petitioners that as far as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18136 of 1989 is concerned, the Income-tax Officer accepted the method of accounting and computed the income or loss of that petitioner on the basis of the accounts maintained by him. It is stated that for the first time, for the assessment year 1984-85, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax computed the first petitioners income by application of rule 9A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), which was framed in exercise of the powers vested in the Central Board of Direct Taxes under section 295 of the Income-tax Act, 196 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as per the assessment order annexure 'A'.According to the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenivas Shenoy Vs. Vasudeva Shenoy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1102; 1994(2)KarLJ517
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J1. This Revision Petition is referred to the Division Bench by the Order dated 14.2.1992 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. The Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22.8.1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in C.R.P.No. 92/1983. The said Revision Petition was directed against the order dated 21.3.1983 passed by the Munsiff, Udupi.3. The facts leading to the instant Revision Petition, briefly stated, are as under:U. Srinivasa Shenoy filed an application at H.R.C.No. 41/1975 before the Court of Munsiff at Udupi under Section 21(1)(a) and (f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for an order of eviction described in Schedule 'B' in the application for eviction. The father of U. Srinivasa Shenoy was Krishna Shenoy. The father of opponents-1 to 5 was one-Narasimha Shenoy. They were brothers. The property described in Schedule-A of the application for eviction was held by the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Srinivasa Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1994
Reported in: II(1994)ACC466; 1994ACJ1140; ILR1994KAR964; 1994(2)KarLJ511
M. Ramakrishna, J 1. The insurer being aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 21.1.1991 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in M.V.C. No. 176/88, awarding a sum of Rs. 18,500/- by way of compensation along with costs and interest at 6 per cent per annum, has approached this Court in this Appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the finding recorded by the Tribunal as to the liability of the insurer to answer the claim, on more than one ground.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. Sri H.G. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer, while taking us to the facts of the case that could be gathered from the judgment and award, pointed out that by virtue of Ex.R-1, produced and marked on behalf of the insurer in the Tribunal, it was undisputed that the Insurance Policy came to be issued in favour of the insured on the 17th November, 1987 at 4 P.M. It was valid till 16.11.1988. The contention urged in support ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B. Radhakrishna Vs. Gouramma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1994
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR1220]; ILR1994KAR1064; 1994(2)KarLJ121; (1994)IILLJ584Kant
G.P. Shivaprakash, J. 1. This appeal is presented by the owner of the building bearing No. 337, 12th Cross, II Block, Thyagarajnagar, Bangalore. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : The appellant had entrusted the work of tile polishing at his newly constructed residential building to a contractor who is the third respondent in this petition. Respondents 1 and 2 are the mother and father respectively of the deceased workman. The third respondent having accepted the work of tile polishing entrusted the execution of the work to the deceased Shivakumar who was his employee. In the course of execution of the work, on 30.1.1990 at about 3.30 p.m., the deceased died due to electrocution. 3. The question that is raised in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation to respondents 1 and 2 who claim to be the dependants of the deceased Shivakumar, under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 4. In the impugned order of the Commissioner, we n...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanian Bharathi S. Vs. Registrar (Evaluation), Bangalore Universi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant7; ILR1994KAR1038; 1994(2)KarLJ149
ORDERVasanthakumar, J.1. This Writ Petition is before us on a reference made by the learned single Judge under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The question for consideration is regarding the scope of Judicial Review pertaining to Revaluation (Review) of Answer Scripts of students, who are aggrieved of the results of examination announced by the Bangalore University.2. The petitioner got himself admitted toDr. B. R. Ambedkar Medical College forM.B.B.S., course in the year 1984 affiliated tothe Bangalore University. He sat for the finalM.B.B.S. Degree (Part 11) examination heldin the month of February 1993 with reglstra-tion No. ME. 5045. Discipline of the coursefor which petitioner appeared comprisedthree subjects viz., First Subject: Medicine a) Theory & viva-voce b) Clinicals Second Subject: Surgery a) Theory - Viva-voce b) Clinicals Third Subject: Obstetrics & Gynaecology a) Theory - Viva-voce b) Clinicals.In the results announced, it was found that the petit...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. H.B. Siddappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: 1994ACJ863; AIR1994Kant338; ILR1994KAR891; 1994(4)KarLJ372
ORDERRamakrishna, J. 1. These two Miscellaneous First Appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 23-6-1992 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, in M.V.C. No. 155 of 1990, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the claimant H. B. Siddappa. M.F. A. No. 2236 of 1992 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited questioning the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the award amount has to be made good by it, whereas the other appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded on the ground of inadequacy.2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.3. The main argument advanced by Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, appellant in M.F.A. No. 2236 of 1992, is that in view of the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act for short) read with the conditions imposed in the policy, a copy of which is marked as Ex. D-1 in the Court below, the Tribunal ought to...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Kannan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR585(KAR); [1994]210ITR585(Karn); 1996(40)KarLJ33
S.B. Majmudar, J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-I, Bangalore, seeking our opinion on the following two questions : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that the provision of section 2(24)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only applies to cases where the value of benefit has actually been obtained by the assesses from the company and not in respect of the value of the benefit derived by the assesses's relatives from the company in which he is a director ?' 2. A few introductory facts leading to this reference deserve to be noted at the outset. 3. The assesses is an individual. The relevant assessment year is 1980-81. The accounting year ended on March 31, 1980. The assesses is a director of Messrs. Escannon Auto Parts (P.) Ltd. In the books of the private limited company in the account of the director (here...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. H.B. Siddappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC69
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. These two Miscellaneous First Appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 23.6.1992 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, in M.V.C. No. 155 of 1990, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the claimant H.B. Siddappa. M.F.A. No. 2236 of 1992 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited questioning the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the award amount has to be made good by it, whereas the other appeal is for enhancement of the compensation awarded on the ground of inadequacy.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. The main argument advanced by Sri 0. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, appellant in M.F.A. No. 2236 of 1992, is that in view of the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act for short) read with the conditions imposed in the policy, a copy of which is marked as Ex. D-1 in the Court below, the Tribunal ought to have...
Tag this Judgment!The Vijaya College Trust Vs. the Kumta Co-operative Arecanut Sales Soc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant35; ILR1994KAR1137; 1994(2)KarLJ102
ORDERM. M. Mirdhe, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order XXI, Rule 58(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 15-1-1993 passed by Second Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District in Miscellaneous Case No. 54 of 1989 dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure for raising attachment of the properties in question.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records of the case.3. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:That the appellant purchased the Survey Numbers 1-25, 1-1, 1-3 of Bappanad village of Mangalore Taluka along with some other properties under sale deed dated 31-3-1979 and other sale deeds dated 6-3-1981. The first respondent claimed that these properties have been attached before judgment in the arbitration suit filed by him. A decree was made by the Arbitrator against respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Kumar Manchanda Vs. Prakash Roadlines Ltd. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1994
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas102(Kar); 1994(4)KarLJ393
Tirath Singh Thakur, J.1. This appeal directed against the order dated March 1, 1991, passed by the learned company judge whereby Company Petition No. 87 of 1990 under section 155 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking rectification of the register of member of the first respondent has been dismissed. Before proceeding any further, it is necessary to briefly state a few facts relevant to the disposal of this appeal. 2. The respondent-company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, on June 26, 1961. It became a deemed public company with effect from June 15, 1988, and is engaged in the business of carriage and distribution of merchandise in India and elsewhere by motor trucks, etc. 3. The company has an authorised share capital of Rs. 50 lakhs divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. Out of the total authorised capital a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs has been subscribed and fully paid. Appellants No. 1 on whose behalf this appeal has already been dismissed as withdrawn was holding...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »