Karnataka Court September 1999 Judgments
C. Kenchappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ1
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation by the inhabitants of Hoodi, Pattandur, Nallurahalli and Kundalahalli villages of K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, questioning the validity of the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') insofar as it relates to lands bearing Sy. Nos. 29 to 39 of Kundalahalli Village, Sy. No. 107 of Pattandur Agrahara Village. They have sought for a writ of certiorari for quashing and/or setting aside the order of allotment dated 20-9-1999 made by respondent 2 in respect of Sy. No. 152 of Hoodi Village; Sy. Nos. 80 and 81 of Nallurhalli Village and Sy. Nos. 34 and 35 of Kundalahalli Village in favour of respondent 3. They have also sought for a further direction to restrain respondent 2 from handing over the aforesaid lands to respondent 3.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are residents of the aforesaid villages and they are agr...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Basha Vs. B. Maruthi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4374; 1999(6)KarLJ572
ORDER1. This is the landlord's revision petition filed against the order of dismissal of the Eviction Petition HRC No. 10573 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Small Causes Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, by an order dated 6-8-1992 under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short, the 'Act'). 2, Revision petitioner filed the eviction petition in the Trial Court seeking for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the shop premises bearing No. 45, 4th Cross, 1st Main, Gangenahalli Extension, Bangalore-32, on the grounds under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Act, alleging that the respondent who is in occupation of the said shop premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- fell in arrears of rent and in spite of a notice dated 16-11-1988 issued to him calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,500/- due from 8-4-1987 he has not paid the said arrears within two months from the date of tender of notice to him, which was sent by registered post and also und...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. A.S. Savithramma Vs. State Bank of Mysore, Agricultural Developme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ544
ORDER1. The 1st defendant judgment-debtor in the final decree proceedings No. 15 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Hassan challenges in this Civil Revision Petition, an order passed by the executing Court passing a final decree in a suit for mortgage contending that the first defendant/petitioner herein should have been given time to pay the decree amount in annual instalments which was declined by the Court below. Hence, the present C.R.P. by the first defendant.2. Heard the Counsel.3. A preliminary decree was passed on 5-10-1994 and the defendants were directed to make payment on or before 5th April, 1995, which was not complied with. Having been failed to utilise the period of granted time to him by the executing Court, the defendant is not entitled to have annual instalments to pay the decreed amount. Order 20, Rule 11 is not applicable to a mortgage decree, the only provisions available under which time can be granted is Order 34, Rule 2 of the CPC. Order 2(c) clearly says that...
Tag this Judgment!The North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Central Office, H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC556; 1999(3)KarLJ617
ORDER1. Prima facie I am of the view that without availing the remedy of revision, the petitioner cannot move the Court on the ground that the revisional authority is going to dismiss it following the judgment of this Court. If that be the case, as learned Counsel says, the matter is pending in the writ appeal, he can straightaway move to the writ appeal Court, without even filing writ petition. This is not for what the law and the Courts are meant for. The procedure in law should be followed, otherwise all the Tribunals in between should be abolished.2. In view of this, I hold that without exhausting the remedy available under the Act by preferring a revision, it is not open to the petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Before entering upon this Court under Article 226, every one should exhaust all the available and effective remedies known in law, otherwise Article 226 will be made a laughing stock in the eye of the public.3. The writ petition is, th...
Tag this Judgment!R.H. Raddi Vs. V.P. Kedilaya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ75
1. The brief facts leading to these two appeals are that V.P. Kedilaya (referred to as the 'plaintiff hereinafter) is the owner in possession of site bearing No. 45 situated at Judicial Colony, more fully described in the Schedule attached to the plaint. R.H. Raddi (referred to as the 'defendant' hereinafter) is the owner in possession of site No. 46 situated on the Northern side of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff obtained a sanction plan and also licence to construct a house in site bearing No. 45 on 20-10-1987 and put up the building as per the sanction plan and he celebrated the house warming of his house in the year 1988. Along with the house he had also put up the staircase on the Northern side of his house and also put up a compound wall separating the site Nos. 45 and 46. In the year 1997, R.H. Raddi/defendant obtained sanction plan to construct a house in his site. At that time, it was noticed that the plaintiff had put up the compound wall encroaching the...
Tag this Judgment!Sankranti Agarbathi Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR712(KAR); [2000]243ITR712(Karn)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law in respect of the assessment year 1983-84 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'1. Whether, on the facts the Tribunal was justified in holding that the litigation expenses of Rs. 60,000 was capital expenditure and was not liable to be allowed in computing the income of the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the litigation expenditure is capital expenditure even when the expenditure incurred was in connection with an acquisition of a business asset, demanding a specific performance of the contract ?'2. The assessee is a firm carrying on trade in Bangalore. It had entered into contract with a trust to purchase a property but the trust did not convey the property. The assessee instituted a suit during the previous year and expended a sum of Rs. 60,000 which it claimed in the revenue field. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the s...
Tag this Judgment!Mittal Investment Corporation Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercia ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: [2001]121STC3(Kar)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In this appeal, the following questions have been raised :(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent revisional authority is justified in holding the appellant as not the owner of the land though full consideration has been paid to the seller of the property acquiring all title, right and benefits relating to the land which the appellant has developed to sell the immovable property later ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent revisional authority is justified in presuming the transfer of property in goods as it relates to the development of the property when that development is not done for any other party under any agreement or understanding but the appellant itself ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, development of property of one's own would attract any tax under Section 5-B of the Act when none of the features of a sale or deemed sale in works contract is established ?(iv) Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Supertronix Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR49; [2002]126STC275(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J. 1. By order dated June 26, 1997, the learned single Judge found that the validity of the unamended section was upheld in the case of Sree Hajee Ahmed Bava v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer . Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision given in the case of State of Haryana v. Santlal : (1993)4SCC380 and submitted that certain questions which have not been raised and considered in the previous decisions require consideration by the division Bench and accordingly the matters were referred to the division Bench by the order of the honourable Chief Justice.2. All these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment since the questions involved are common. Validity of Section 28-A(2) and 28-A(4) as enacted by the Karnataka Taxation Laws (Third Amendment) Act, 1996 has been challenged as being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution of India and declare the same (sic) asked the learned counsel for the petitioner not to ar...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. C.R. Subramanian
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR342(KAR); [2000]242ITR342(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dated July 18, 1997, for the assessment year 1981-82 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the site purchased in 1976 and the building constructed thereafter were different assets for the purpose of capital gains though they had been sold as a single asset during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1981-82 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the site and the building were separable assets for the purpose of capital gains and that the profits arising from the sale of site was required to be considered as long-term capital gain and that the profits arising out of the sale of the building should be considered under short-term capital gains ?' 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Mayura Restaurant Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1999
Reported in: [2000]119STC84(Kar)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. In both these appeals, the order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, have been assailed on the following grounds :'(a) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority is correct in law in initiating suo motu revisional proceedings ?(b) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority is correct in law in passing the revisional order by revising the assessment which was concluded by the assessing authority to the best judgment ?(c) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the revisional authority is correct in law in holding that the turnover should be determined on the basis of 5 times the expenditure of working expenses ?(d) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the turnover as determined by the revisional authority is correct and sustainable in law.'2. The appellant, Hotel Mayura Restaurant, Bellary, was assessed on best judgment assessment in respe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »