Karnataka Court November 1995 Judgments

Emerald Valley Estates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1996]222ITR799(KAR); [1996]222ITR799(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ204

ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. These two references have been made by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, at the instance of the assessee. In ITRC No. 3/1995 the Tribunal has referred the following three questions relevant to asst. yr. 1982-83 for the opinion of this Court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale of shade trees would give rise to capital gains, liable to tax under s. 45 of the Act (2) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was justified in determining the cost of purchase of the shade trees sold at Rs. 1,50,000 (3) Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of s. 54E of the Act, on investment made in Rural Development Bonds out of the income of the preceding year ?' In ITRC No. 117/1993 the Tribunal has referred the following two questions relevant to asst. yr. 1984-85 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was ri...

Balasaheb Vs. Land Tribunal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR214; 1996(1)KarLJ194

ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus for passing fresh Orders on the claim of Respondents 3 to 5 by mentioning the boundaries to which they are entitled for the occupancy rights. It is very pertinent to note the relief that has been sought in this Writ Petition in order to find out whether such a relief can be granted by this Court.2. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the records of the Case. I have also heard the Learned Additional Government Advocate.3. It is not disputed in this case that Respondents 6 & 7 are the owners of Sy.No. 442 measuring 8 acres 7 guntas. The Respondents 3 to 5 have submitted Form No. 7 claiming Occupancy Rights in this Survey No. to the extent of 3 acres. The Land Tribunal by the impugned order passed in the year 1981 had granted Occupancy Rights to the Respondents 3 to 5 to the extent of 3 acres in that land. The Petitioner claims to have purchased 1 1/2 acres in th...

Chinnappa Vs. Srinivasa Reddy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR932; 1996(1)KarLJ114

ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1.This Revision Petition has been listed along with the application for vacation of exparte interim order of stay. But, to avoid further delay in the matter of disposal of the Revision I have called upon both the Counsel for the parties to argue the case on merits, Before I further proceed, I may mention that this Revision arises out of the judgment and order dated 15.7.1995 delivered by the Principal Civil Judge (K.G. Lakshmipathi), Bangalore, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39/95 (K. Chinnappa v. C. Srinivasa Reddy) dismissing the plaintiff's appeal challenging the order of mandatory injunction granted by the Munsiff, Anekal, on 25.3.1995 in favour of the defendant (opposite party) in O.S.No. 193/93.2. The brief facts of the case in nut-shell are to the effect that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering and committing trespass on the land alleged to the belonging to the plaintiff, situated in Hebbagodi v...

The Assistant Commissioner and L.A.O., Yadgir Vs. Mohammad Aziz Rahama ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR1666; 1995(6)KarLJ435

J. Eswar Prasad, J.1. These appeals arise out of the common Judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Yadgir, in LAC No:- 416 to 422 of 1991, on reference to Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The lands of the appellants in a total extent of 88 Acres 17 Guntas, were acquired for the purpose of construction of 1st Grade Degree College at Shahapur, under the preliminary Notification published in the Karnataka Gazette on 10.3.1988. A common award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, offering compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,800/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the said offer, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per acre. One of the claimants made a claim for fixing compensation of Rs. 1,03,175/- for the well situated in Sy.No. 499, In support of their claim, the claimants examined PW1 to PW3 on their behalf and marked Ex.P1 to P15. On behalf of the Appellant-Assistant Commissioner, the Land Acqui...

Emerald Valley Estates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Karnataka

Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. These two references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, at the instance of the assessee. In I.T.R.C. No. 3 of 1995, the Tribunal has referred the following three questions relevant to the assessment year 1982-83 for the opinion of this court :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale of shade trees would give rise to capital gains, liable to tax under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was justified in determining the cost of purchase of the shade trees sold at Rs. 1,50,000 ? (3) Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 54E of the Act on investment made in rural development bonds out of the income of the preceding year ?' 2. In I. T. R. C. No. 117 of 1993 the Tribunal has referred the following two questions relevant to the assessment year 1984-85 ;'(...

Rajendra Bhat U. Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Bank, Hyde ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997(1)KarLJ7

ORDER1. The principal point that falls for determination in this writ petition is the question as to whether the termination from service of the petitioner who was at the relevant time working as Manager of the Gandhinagar Branch of the Andhra Bank by order dated August 29, 1984 on the ground that the management has lost confidence in him can pass legal scrutiny. Whereas situations may arise in appropriate cases wherein a contract of service can be repudiated by the employer with due notice on the ground that the management has lost confidence in an employee, the real issue at dispute in this case is as to whether this ground is available in cases where specific misconduct has been alleged and the order of termination on this ground is being used as a camouflage for the non-holding of disciplinary proceedings. In other words, the subtle point that is canvassed in justification of the action is that if an employee has misconducted himself and has thereby forfeited the confidence of the ...

Jana Bai Vs. Deputy Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR1280; 1996(2)KarLJ68

ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner praying to quash the mutation entry dated 27.3.1981 produced at Annexure-A and for declaration that the order dated 13.9.1995 passed by respondent No. 1 at Annexure-B is illegal and void. On the direction by this Court, Additional Government Pleader has taken notice for respondents -1 and 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader and perused the records of the case.2. The order that is challenged by the petitioner passed by respondent No. 1 in revision is final, so. far as mutation entries are concerned. This Court in the Ruling reported in : ILR1986KAR1059 Srimanmaharaja Niranjana Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswamy v. Deputy Commissioner held when once an order has become final, the only remedy for a part/ is to file a suit as permitted under the Proviso to Section 135 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish this Ruling...

Mallappa Vs. Land Tribunal

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR1278; 1996(2)KarLJ72

ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner praying to quash the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner.2. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and perused the records of the case.3. The petitioner filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in the suit schedule property. The Tribunal by the impugned order has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the right on advance lease from the deceased father of Shettappa Fakkirappa Kuri and even after the period of five years he continued to cultivate the said land without any agreement with the landlord. On that basis, the Tribunal has held that on account of the expiry of the period of five years of the lease, the relationship of the Landlord and the Tenant do not exist between the parties. But, this is a wrong interpretation of law done by the Tribunal. As per Section 6 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, no tenancy of any land shall...