Karnataka Court July 1998 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.
C.M. Narayana Reddy Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ550
ORDER1. Heard Shri Satish G.M., holding brief for Shri G. Ganesh Shenoy, for the revision-petitioner and Shri K.S. Savanur for the respondent.2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th July, 1993, delivered in M.A. No. 11 of 1993 (Smt. Lakshmidevamma v CM. Narayana Reddy) from the judgment and order dated 22-4-1993, passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Gowribidanur, on I.A. No. I, granting the temporary injunction. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court, taking the view and recording the finding to the effect that in order to get the relief for injunction, plaintiff has to prove prima facie case, that is a case prima facie triable and that prima facie case did not mean prima facie title. He further opined in order to establish prima facie case, plaintiff has also to establish his possession on the date of the suit for injunction and in the matter of claiming temporary injunction the lower Appella...
R. Prakash Vs. D.M. Radhakrishnaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ452
ORDER1. This is plaintiff's revision from the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 1994, passed by the VII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in SCC Suit No. 4951 of 1991 which plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,400/- with interest due up-to-date, that is in total for a sum of Rs. 7,000/-.2. Plaintiffs case was that on 26-5-1990, the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,400/- by executing the pronote Exhs. P. 1 and P. 2 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. That in spite of repeated demands and requests and legalnotice dated 14-1-1991 and 18-4-1991, which were served on the defendant, the defendant failed to pay the amount. The plaintiff has also alleged, by way of amendment, that on the same day 26-5-1990 defendant had also borrowed another sum of Rs. 5,000/- and executed another pronote and receipt. The defendant in the original written statement asserted that he had paid Rs. 2,400/- that is Rs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.C. Shankarappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1993; [1998]234ITR15(KAR); [1998]234ITR15(Karn)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The assessee is an exhibitor of films and running a theatre called 'Nanda Picture House' since 1972. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which purchased a site at Mandya in the year 1972 and commenced construction of another theatre 'Gurusree' on the said site. He borrowed funds from the Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mandya, for purposes of construction.2. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee claimed deduction of interest in a sum of Rs. 56,429 paid to the Karnataka Bank Limited. The said interest was claimed as the interest on the loan raised from the bank for the construction of the theatre. Similarly, for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85, the assessment years under consideration, the assessee paid interest amounting to Rs. 1,65,738, Rs. 2,29,206 and Rs. 3,97,032 and claimed the same as revenue expenditure against its business income. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction of interes...
Belgaum Structural Engineering Pvt. Limited Vs. Additional Commissione ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC222(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Point which falls for determination in this appeal is as to whether the Trade discount/cash discount given by a dealer can be included in his taxable turnover.2. Appellant is a manufacturer of PVC insulated wires and cables at Belgaum. It had declared the gross turnover (GTO) and taxable turnover (TTO) at Rs. 9,68,273.57 and Rs. 8,68,908 respectively for the assessment year 1994-95. The assessing authority while completing assessment added back to the total turnover a sum of Rs. 3,47,685 which represents the discount allowed to the customer. By adding this to the total turnover the authority arrived at the figure of Rs. 13,25,959 and proposed to levy the turnover tax on the ground that the taxable turnover exceeds Rs. 10,00,000. The disputed tax element is Rs. 10,861.3. Appellant filed appeal under Section 20 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the levy of turnover tax and also inclusion of discount amount while calcu...
Belgaum Structural Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Additional Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2856
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Point which falls for determination in this appeal is as to whether the Trade discount/Case discount given by a dealer can be included in his taxable turn over.2. Appellant is a manufacturer of PVC insulated wires & cables at Belgaum. It has declared the Gross turn over (GTO) and Taxable turn over (TTO) at Rs. 9,68,273-57 and Rs. 8,68,908/- respectively for the assessment year 1994-95. The assessing authority while completing assessment added back to the total turn over a sum of Rs. 3,47,685/- which represents the discount allowed to the customer. By adding this to the total turn over the authority arrived at the figure of Rs. 13,25,959-00 and proposed to levy the turn over tax on the ground that the taxable turn over exceeds Rs. 10,00,000/-. The disputed tax element is Rs. 10,861/-.3. Appellant filed appeal under Section 20 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')challenging the levy of turn over tax and also inclusion of discount am...
K. Raghavachar Vs. the Chairman, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and Appe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ276
ORDER1. This petition arises from the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Urban Land Ceiling, Bangalore Agglomeration, Bangalore. The petitioner in this petition has sought the setting aside of Annexure-A and B, namely, orders dated 18-1-1985 passed in case No. U.L.C. (1) 56/83-84; and also quashing of order dated 13-5-1992 in Appeal No. 41 of 1986, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal/Appellate Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Bangalore Agglomeration, Bangalore, under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.2. The facts of the case in brief are that in proceedings of U.L.C. (1) 56/83-84, an order was passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Bangalore, (vide, its order dated 18-1-1985) declaring the extent of 27,108.59 sq.metres of land in Survey No. 6 of Uttarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, to be held in excess of the ceiling limits by the declarant and the authority directed the publication of notification under Section 10(1) of the Land ...
Nagamma and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ389
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e., Sri Ajay holding brief from Sri L. Govindaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. By this petition, the petitioners have sought the issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order bearing No. HUD 24 UEE 89, Bangalore, dated 24-4-1993 passed by 1st respondent (Annexure-E to the writ petition) as well as notice bearing No. ULC SR:53:93-94, dated 13-6-1996 issued by the 3rd respondent (Annexure-D) and also notice bearing No. ULC:SR:53:76-77, dated 25-11-1996 issued by the 3rd respondent (Annexure-G to the writ petition).3. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that the petitioners vide order dated 2-2-1985 issued by the Government of Karnataka, sought exemption of vacant land specified in the schedule to Annexure-A. This land was held by Babu Kotian. The exemption was granted subject to the following conditions:--(1) That the land should actually be used only for agriculture.(2) That whenever the land is proposed to ...
Revanna Vs. A.H. Govindaraja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR656; 1999(3)KarLJ126
1. The appellant has filed this appeal assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the probate civil petition filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of the Will executed by late Smt. Gangarama in favour of her sister's son Govindaraja, respondent herein.2. The brief facts of the case are, that one Huchaiah was owning a house property in Bangalore which is a disputed property. Appellant is the brother of Huchaiah. Huchaiah has got a wife by name Gangamma. Huchaiah died in the year 1982 leaving behind him Smt. Gangamma as his sole legal heir. After the death of Huchaiah, Smt. Gangamma succeeded to the property of her husband. She has a sister by name Shan-thamma. Before her death, Smt. Gangamma was suffering from cancer. She executed a Will on 10-8-1990, and died on 5-9-1990. After her death, a probate civil petition was filed in this Court under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, for probate of the Will. This Court after elaborately con...
B. Ashok Shenoy Vs. the Station House Officer, Puttur, Dakshina Kannad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3001; 1998(5)KarLJ247
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court had taken cognizance of the offence on the complaint filed by the Inspector of Police whereas the learned Magistrate who promulgated the order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code alone is competent to file the complaint as contained under Section 195(1) of the Code. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is contrary to the provisions of law and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned State Public Prosecutor also could not fully support the impugned order. 3. It is an undisputed fact that the Taluka Executive Magistrate of Puttur, had issued an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting the assembly, procession, etc., between 28-10-1991 and 30-10-1991. However, the complaint was filed by the Police Inspector before the J.M.F.C., Puttur alleging that during th...
Ganapatsa Shankarsa Kalburgi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant38; ILR1998KAR3119; 1998(5)KarLJ518
ORDER1. The first set of these petitions are listed for preliminary hearing and the second set are posted for orders. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, they are heard on merits and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners are stated to be the holders of agreements of sale executed by respondents 5 to 12 in their favour in respect of different sites in Sy. Nos. 403/2B, 408/2B+2A/2, 406/4, 392/2C+3B/3, 399/4, 396/2 and 397/3, 398/3+4/A, 499/1A+IB/2/1 and 15/1/1A+1B+2A+2B+2C situated in Unkal Village, Hubli Taluk. The aforesaid lands along with other lands were notified for acquisition pursuant to the scheme prepared by the third respondent. After complying with the provisions of Sections 17(5) and 18, a declaration is also issued under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987. The owners of the aforesaid lands have formed sites and agreed to transfer the same in favour of the petitioners after the publication of the preli...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »