Karnataka Court July 1997 Judgments

Yashwant Bhoopal and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. All these petitions are filed by the declarants who had been issued with notices as at Annexure-B to E under Section 122-A of the Land Reforms Act. The petitioners have challenged the said notices in these writ petitions. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.T. Rayareddy, the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri S.S. Guttal, appearing for respondent 1-State and respondent 2-Land Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rayareddy while taking me through backdrop of the case submitted that the impugned notices challenged by the petitioners is on the ground that respondent 2, Tribunal has got no power to review its own order passed earlier under Section 67 of the Land Reforms Act as long as it had not made out a case under Section 122-A of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that in issuing the impugned notices, the Tribunal had not notified therein as to what prompted the Tribunal to cause a issuance of the same, for the said no...

State of Karnataka Vs. K.A. Neelavva

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1998Kant235; ILR1997KAR2198; 1998(1)KarLJ32

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 7-9-1994, delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11763 of 1994, whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge allowed the writ petition and made the rule absolute.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that he is the owner in possession of Sy. No. 143 of Cherala Srimangala Village of Somwarpet Taluk, of Kodagu District. According to the petitioner's case, the petitioner made an application under Section 8 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976. The petitioner has annexed that application alleged to have been made on 9-12-1992, along with the required documents. Petitioner's further case is that more than one year passed, but the application was not considered and no orders had been passed by the concerned officers and according to the petitioner as no orders were passed within a period of one year from the date of the application, the permission to cu...

Basavegowda Vs. Smt. Nanjamma and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(2)KarLJ81

ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged and has sought for grant of a writ of certiorari or any other suitable order or direction as the Court may deem fit to quash the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 namely, Assistant Commissioner, Mandya and the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya, in Case No. STL. 5/89-90, dated 26-2-1991 and order in appeal PTCL 44(A)/90-91, dated 3-12-1993. Copies of orders have been annexed as Annexure-A and B respectively to the writ petition. Petitioner has further prayed that this Court should hold this alienation made in favour of the petitioner of Survey No. 242 measuring 1 acre of Manigere Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, are not void under the provisions of the Act and for grant of other reliefs. 2. The facts of the case in nut-shell are that according to the petitioner, who claims himself to be the purchaser of 2 acres of land of Survey No. 242, old Survey No. 153 of the village, is in possession of the said land and h...

K. Pandarinathan Vs. V. Raju and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)295; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)293; 1998CriLJ1128; 1998(2)KarLJ144

ORDER1. The petitioner challenges Annexure-D endorsement issued by the 2nd respondent-Magistrate, A complaint was made by the 1st respondent with respect to an offence committed by the petitioner, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Annexure-C is the summons issued to the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent on 2-5-1997. The petitioner alleges that he appeared on 2-5-1997, but the Presiding Officer was on leave. Thereafter, the matter stood adjourned to 30-5-1997. On that day, the accused was present along with his Counsel. It is seen that on that day the impugned order was passed by the 2nd respondent in the following manner:-'Accused present. No bail petition filed, hence the accused is remanded to J.C. Call on 13-06-1997. Sd/- II A.C.M.M. Bail petition filed, the accused is released on executing P.B., and S.B., of Rs. 10,000/-. Surety not furnished, hence the accused is remanded to J.C. till 13-06-1997. Sd/- II A.C.M.M'. 2. It is this endorseme...

M/S. Paparam Bricks and Tiles, Hinkal, Mysore Vs. Hinkal Village Panch ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2878

ORDER1. Demand notice dated 4-7-1994 issued by respondent-Hilkal Village Panchayat, its correctness or otherwise is being called in question by the petitioner-Industry in this writ petition. Incidentally, it is seeking for a writ to quash the orders made byAppellate Authority dated 12-7-1990 under the provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishad Act, 1983.2. Petitioner's industry is situated in premises bearing Nos. 192, 193/1 and 193/3 of Hilkal Village, Mysore District. petitioner-Industry was paying property tax at the rate of Rs. 640/-till 1986-1987.3. For the years 1987-1988 and 1988-1989 petitioner was served with a demand notice dated 10-12-1988 directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 25,662/- being the enhanced property tax. Being aggrieved by this illegal and arbitrary demand notice, petitioner-Industry questioned the same in an appeal before the Zilla Parishad. By a communication dated 12-7-1990 petitioner was informed by the office of the Appellate Authority that by an order dated 1...

Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Kar)373; ILR1997KAR2415; [1997]228ITR676(KAR); [1997]228ITR676(Karn)

G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The assessee is an Indian company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. During the asst. yr. 1982-83, it had derived income from the business carried on both in India as well as outside India, including Malaysia. It was subjected to assessment under s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), whereunder its claim for deduction on account of dividend paid on preference shares and the tax payable in Malaysia were disallowed. The disallowance was confirmed by the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, at the instance of the company, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the Act : '(i) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of the liability on account of dividend on preference shares (ii) Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of tax payable...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mysodet (P) Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1998]233ITR674(KAR); [1998]233ITR674(Karn)

G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. Heard Mr. M. V. Seshachala, learned standing counsel for the IT Department, and Mr. G. Sarangan, learned senior advocate with Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this reference under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), we are required to record our opinion on the following questions of law - '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,863 for the asst. yr. 1978-79 and Rs. 46,502 for the asst. yr. 1979-80 being the disallowance of expenses of presentation articles made to customers exceeding Rs. 50 each item by applying r. 6B 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that only s. 40(c) would apply in the instant case in respect of payment made to a director and that the ceiling limit would be Rs. 72,000 ?' 3. In so far as the second question of law is concerned, the same has...

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Paraveen and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(1998)ACC220

M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The R-5 is a driver who is nothing more than a formal party. The appeal to stand dismissed as against him.2. The appellants' learned Advocate has submitted that there were some procedural delays as a result of which the appeal came to be filed late and it is his contention that the Insurance Company could not be disqualified from agitating the matter on merits. Unlike in the case of individuals where there may be handicaps and hardships, the same standard cannot be applied to Companies, Corporations and Banks particularly in situations where delay was occurred. Though this Court would have been justified in dismissing I.A. I, I have preferred to technically condone the delay, allow I.A. I and consider the case on merits.I have heard the two learned Advocates. The appellants' learned Advocate submitted that the basic error in the order of the Tribunal stems from the fact that the deceased respondent who was the cleaner of the vehicle in question or rather was taking ...

Suresh Bheemaji Nadgir Vs. the Land Tribunal, Hirekerur, Dharwad Distr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2301; 1998(1)KarLJ493

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for contesting respondent 2. Sri S.V. Jagannath, Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for respondent 1 and respondent 3. Accordingly he takes notice. Heard the learned Government Advocate also.2. In this writ petition, the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hirekerur, as per Annexure-A (marked in Writ Petition No. 2874 of 1979) dated 5-10-1978 has been challenged. The present petitioner is the landlord.3. As per Annexure-A, the Land Tribunal in respect of the total extent of 2 acres 4 guntas of land in Survey No. 184/1 situated in Thavargi Village, Hirekerur Taluk, granted 1 acre 4 guntas to present respondent 2-Hanmanthappa Shivalingappa Ajjappanavar. The balance of one acre was granted to Hanmanthappa Dyavappa Ajjappanavar. The entire extent belonged to the petitioner.4. So far as the grant of occupancy rights to Hanmanthappa Dyavappa Ajjappanavar, the petitioner has not challenged it. This writ p...

The Empire Publicity Service, Bangalore Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalor ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2868

ORDER1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have sought for a direction directing the Corporation not to remove the hoardings erected by them on the ground that they have deemed permission under Section 443(10) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') since the Commissioner of the Corporation has not passed orders on the applications filed by them for grant of permission to erect the hoardings or for renewal of such permission within 45 days.2. It is submitted that the petitioners have made applications for permission to erect the advertisement hoardings in Bangalore city under Section 135 of the Act. The said applications, according to the petitioners, having not been considered by the Commissioner and no order is communicated to them within 45 days the permission is deemed to have been granted under Section 443(10) of the Act and therefore the Corporation has no authority to remove the hoardings. The learned Counsel for the Corp...