Karnataka Court October 1995 Judgments

V.M. Salgaocar Bros. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, has at the instance of the petitioner assesses referred to this court the following three questions for opinion :'(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant's 'Iron ore sizing and washing plant' did not constitute an industrial undertaking for the purposes of Section 80J of the Act and thereby rejecting the applicant's claim for relief under Section 80J of the Act in respect of the said plant ? (2) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that purifying and upgrading the iron ore does not amount to manufacture or production of any article for the purpose of Section 80J of the Act and thereby rejecting the appellant's claim for relief under Section 80J of the Act in respect of 'Iron ore sizing and washing plant' ? (3) Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of...

Prof. P.N. Shetty Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. and Others

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner in both these petitions is the same and so also are the respondents. I need to mention at the very outset that the petitioner who was a Senior Officer employed by the Indian Telephone Industries (hereinafter referred to as 'the ITI') was aggrieved by certain developments culminating with a transfer order dated June 14, 1990 whereby he was sought to be transferred from Bangalore to Rai Bareli. The petitioner moved this Court through W.P. No. 6340 of 1991 and the effective relief as I can gather from the pleadings is that the transfer order in question ought to be quashed and the petitioner be awarded consequential benefits.2. The petitioner had not complied with the transfer order in question as a result of which the ITI instituted certain disciplinary proceedings against him. I shall have occasion to mention those proceedings, but suffice it to say at this stage that the enquiry that was instituted ended with a report that was adverse to the petitioner. Thereafter, th...

Sri Venkatappa Vs. Sri Venkataswami

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1996Kant129; ILR1995KAR3461; 1995(6)KarLJ80

ORDER1. This revision is directed against an order of the learned Munsiff, Srinivasapnra, rejecting the objection filed by the judgment debtor to the execution filed by the respondent. It is undisputed that the respondent has filed a suit against the petitioner in O. S. No. 26 of 1980 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Kolar, for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 4,000/- with interest and costs amounting to Rs. 9,532-75. The suit was decreed as prayed for after contest. Since the judgment debtor has failed to satisfy the decree, the plaintiff has filed an Execution Petition No. 16 of 1992 to recover the said amount. The execution petition was opposed by the judgment debtor on the ground that the decree has been fully satisfied as per the panchayat held in the village and that the decree-holder has executed a stamp receipt dated 20-10-1988 having received the decretal amount and that he undertook to report the same to the Court.2. The Court below proceeded to conduct an enquiry reg...

Deshaiah Vs. Chinnaswamy and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1996Kant164; ILR1995KAR3465; 1995(5)KarLJ402

ORDER1. This revision under Section 115, CPC is directed against the Judgment of the District Judge, Mandya, dismissing the petitioner's appeal for re-grant of Thoti Service Land measuring 5 acres 19 guntas in Sy. No. 131 of Manigere village. This case has a chequered career. Parties to the proceedings have made applications for re-grant of lands before the concerned Revenue Authorities claiming to be the holders of the office of Neerganti and thoti in the village called 'Manigere', Mandya District. The Assistant Commissioner after an enquiry rejected the claim of the petitioner for re-grant of 5 acres 19 guntas in Sy. No. 131 of Manigere Village while granting the said land in favour of the respondents. The said order was challenged before the District Judge, who had set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The matter then came before the Tahsildar Maddur. The Tahsildar after fresh enquiry has also come to a similar conclusion and rejected the petitioner's claim...

Muralidhar Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR58

Bharuka, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot a seat to the Petitioner in Engineering Course treating him to be 'Karnataka Student' within the meaning of Clause 5(d) of the Brochure issued by the Special Officer (Examination) pertaining to holding of Common Entrance Test for Admission to Medical, Dental and Engineering courses in 1995.2. According to the petitioner, his parents hail from Karnataka; his father is presently serving in a Zonal Office of the Syndicate Bank at Hyderabad. As per Annexure B, a certificate issued by the Deputy Divisional Manager of the said Bank, father of the petitioner has declared his domicile as 'Udupi - Karnataka'. According to the Petitioner, his mother Smt. Dakshayini has studied in Karnataka at Udupi upto 2nd Year PUC. In support of the said fact he has enclosed the Cumulative Record, SSLC Marks Card (Annexures E and F respectively). The petitioner had appeared for 1995 Co...

Jayalaxmi Vs. Udupi Town Municipal Council

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR3426; 1995(5)KarLJ126

ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This is a Revision filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 25th September, 1995 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Udupi (who is also an Additional Munsiff) dismissed the applicant's application under Order 16 Rule 1 Read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure which application had been moved in an appeal under Section 150 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. Section 150 provides for appeals against the assessment of tax at the time when notice of demand was served. It provides that appeal will lie to the Judicial Magistrate having the jurisdiction over the area concerned. Sub-section 2 of Section 150 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act provides that the decision of the Magistrate upon any appeal, be subject to revision by the Court to which appeals from his decisions ordinarily lie. When the order has been passed by the Magistrate or Judicial Officer namely the Judicial Magistrate referred to in...

Shaan Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Syndicate Ba ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR3428; 1995(6)KarLJ78

ORDERHari Nath Tiihari, J. 1. This is a Revision from an order dated 25th September, 1995 holding the objections filed by the plaintiff to the Commissioner's Report are not sustainable. The learned Munsiff observed in his order that Commissioner's Report itself speaks roughly about that to the tune of Rs. 4000/- damage will be caused by removal of strong room and lockers and therefore, the Commissioner according to the Trial Court, has answered all the points as directed by the Court and it did not find any ground to refer back the matter or reject the Commissioner's Report.2. The order of the Court rejecting the objections to the Commissioner's Report is one of order of interlocutory in nature. It has been held by this Court in the case of GOPALA SOMAYAJI C v. R. MADHAVA PAI AND ANR. 1998(1) KLJ 499 that an order refusing to reject the Commissioner's Report or in other words accepting the Commissioner's Report as piece of evidence on record does not amount to case decided. Rule 10 of ...

Melagiriyappa and Another Vs. Tumalappa and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1996Kant150; 1995(5)KarLJ392

ORDER1. This is a Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code from the judgment and order dated 11-11-1993 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 44/93 (Thumalappa v. Melagiriyappa), whereby the first Appellate Court allowed the plaintiff appeal in the matter of an application under. Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC which had been moved in suit No. 491/92 and set aside the order of the Trial Court, whereby the Trial Court has refused to grant temporary injunction, the lower Appellate Court after having set aside in as Court's order, granted the order of temporary injunction in favour of the opposite parties.2. The suit No. 491/92 was a suit for specific performance of contract to execute the sale deed in pursuance of the agreement dated 22-7-1989. According to the plaintiffs opposite party, the defendant had sold his 4 acres of land as admitted. Execution of the sale deed dt. 10-2-1950 and has handed over possession thereof at the time of executing the sale deed dt. 10-2-1950. Subseque...

Hakim and Sons Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Xv Circle, Bangalore and Ot ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR3136

M.L. Penndse, C.J.1. These two appeals are preferred by the original petitioners to challenge common judgment passed by the learned single Judge in two petitions being Writ Petitions Nos. 18383 and 18384 of 1991. By the impugned order, both the petitions were dismissed. The facts which gave rise to filing of the petitions are not in dispute and are required to be briefly stated to appreciate the grievance of the appellants in these two appeals. 2. The appellants are registered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and are dealing in purchasing 'leco' from Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Leco is not mentioned in any of the entries in the Schedules of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. However, over the years leco was considered as coal subject to duty under entry 1 of the Fourth Schedule to the Act. The entry reads as under : 'Coal including coke in all its forms but excluding charcoal.' The assessments of the appellants were completed for all years prior to assessment order 1988-89 by subje...

Mohammed Ali Vs. Dawood Basha

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR3420; 1995(6)KarLJ72

ORDER 14 RULE 2 - Scope & Purport - Issues involving mixed questions of law & fact cannot be tried as preliminary issue : only those relating to question of jurisdiction or bar to entertain suit if suit or part thereof can be disposed of on basis thereof - Question as tc valuation : involves mixed question of fact & law not pure issue of law. (i) If there are issues of fact or issues involving mixed questions of law and fact then even if they relate to jurisdiction cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. That Order 14 Rule 2(2)provides issue of law pure or simple can be tried as a preliminaryissue provided they relate to question of jurisdiction or bar to theentertainment of the suit and Court is of opinion the suit or caseor part thereof can be disposed on the basis thereof. Any otherquestion of law or any question of law other than one touching orrelating to jurisdiction or other than relating to bar created in thesuit, cannot be tried as a preliminary issue.(ii) The question as to v...