Karnataka Court July 2002 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.
V.V. Jayaram and ors. Vs. M.S. Sikandar Ahamed and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant67
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In this revision petition the legality and validity of the order dated 14-6-2000 passed by the trial Court on Issue No, 1 holding that the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, is questioned by the defendants.2. This revision petition was allowed setting aside the order under revision by an order dated 8-7-2002 and answering Issue No. 1 in the affirmative. Consequently, the trial Court was directed to return the plaint for being presented before appropriate court. Before signing the order, it was noticed that Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act was not considered. Hence the matter was got listed 'for being spoken to' and the order dated 8-7-2001 was recalled and the matter was listed for hearing.3. Mr. Ram Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has not considered that for the purpose of jurisdiction, the suit should be valued on the actual market value as provided underSection 50 of the A...
Ramachandra Vs. Smt. Kempamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant251; 2003(3)KarLJ144
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the rejection of his application filed under Order 41, Rule 5 of the CPC in R.A. No. 56 of 2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanjan-gud, which appeal was filed against the rejection of his application filed under Order 21, Rules 97 to 99 and 101 of the CPC in Execution No. 93 of 2000, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nanjangud.2. The respondent 1-Smt. Kempamma in this revision petition, filed a suit for declaration and for possession in O.S. No. 30 of 1990 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nanjangud, against respondents 2 and 3 herein. The said suit was hotly contested and a decree was passed in favour of the 1st respondent against which, respondents 2 and 3 filed an appeal before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanjangud in R.A. No. 10 of 1997. The said appeal also came to be dismissed on merits. After the confirmation of the judgment and...
K.R. Subbaraju Vs. Vasavi Trading Company, Bangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant407; II(2004)BC133; ILR2002KAR3513; 2002(4)KarLJ545
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The defendant has preferred this civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is one for recovery of money and other consequential reliefs.2. The plaintiffs had filed LA. No. 6 seeking amendment to the plaint for incorporating Clause 2(a), taking a stand that the plaintiffs instead of carrying on business as a partnership as originally pleaded, they were doing so as members of their Hindu undivided family. By the impugned order, the Court below has allowed the amendment. The question to be attended at the threshold is as to whether as a consequence of amendment to Section 115 of the CPC by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999. (46 of 1999), which has come into force with effect from 1-7-2002, the present civil revision petition is at all entertainable.3. Section 115 of the CPC before its amendment by CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) read as under.-'115. Revision.--(1) The High Court may call for the recor...
Basana Gowda and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag District, Gad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ157
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. The lands in dispute belonged to the joint family of which one Kariyappa Gowda was the member. He filed a suit L.C. No. 112 of 1944 for partition and separate possession of his l/3rd share in all the joint family properties. After contest the suit came to be decreed on 19-8-1947 declaring Kariyappa Gowda as the owner of l/3rd share in all the suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same the present petitioners preferred an appeal in L.A. No. 24 of 1947. After contest the decree of the Court below was confirmed and the appeal came to be dismissed and the said decree has become final. Thereafter, Kariyappa gowda initiated final decree proceedings for securing his l/3rd share. In the year 1953 when the Civil Court transmitted the papers to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code for effecting partition, the Deputy Commissioner in turn sent the papers to the Assistant Commissioner.2. The record discloses that the revenue authorities did ...
A.K. Subbaiah Vs. Karnataka State Bar Council and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant410; ILR2002KAR3918; 2003(4)KarLJ219
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. A complaint filed by one Sri J. Gopal son of late Sri Jatappa under Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961, against the petitioner before the Karnataka State Bar Council is referred to the disciplinary committee by the Bar council for enquiry. The initiation of these proceedings is the subject matter of this writ petition.2. To appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition.3. Petitioner is a Practising Advocate and is in the roll of Karnataka State Bar Council (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'Bar Council'). One SriJatappa, while he was alive, through his power of attorney holder Sri J. Gopal filed a petition in W. P. No. 28236/1992 before this Court, inter alia questioning the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, in case No. LRF 5448/78 dated 22-7-1992, by engaging the services of Sri C. V. Subba Rao, a learned Counsel. When the petition w...
Smt. Andalamma Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1466
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 3 acres 8 guntas in Sy. No. 30/1B of Madivala Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said land was proposed to be acquired under a preliminary notification dated 26-11-1959 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'Act'). This was followed by the final notification dated 28-9-1965 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. 2. I am told that the very land is the subject-matter of acquisition in the year 1965 for the purpose of Indian Institute of Astrophysics. 3. Though the final notification is of the year 1965, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award on 2-9-1969 and it is approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 5-9-2000. These facts are not disputed by the other parties. 4. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed on the ground that no award has been passed within two years from the date of the final notificati...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sandur Manganese Iron Ores (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3661; [2003]259ITR446(KAR); [2003]259ITR446(Karn)
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law for an answer by this court as required under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'):'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 263 in view of the Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, : [1986]157ITR315(KAR) , although the point involved was not the subject-matter of appeal ?'2. The assessee is a company deriving income from extracting iron ore. For the assessment year 1983-84 to which this reference relates, the assessee had declared loss of Rs. 5,00,16,716. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on March 27, 1986, under Section 143(3) of the Act by determining the net loss at Rs. 3,04,91,342. This order is placed at annexure A. The a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gogte Textiles Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3823; [2003]260ITR229(KAR); [2003]260ITR229(Karn)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This reference is made to this court by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). The question of law involved herein is--'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the commission paid to the agents on actual sales cannot form sales promotion expenses ? 2 ...'2. The assessee is a limited company. While framing the assessment order for the assessment year 1985-86, the Assessing Officer, among various other additions/disallowances, took into consideration the commission paid to the agents, for the purpose of disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Act. Healso deducted the amount of Central subsidy received by the assessee from the cost of the assets to arrive at the depreciation allowable for the year. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the commission paid to the agents should not be taken into consideration for t...
Cit Vs. Sandur Manganese Iron Ores (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Kar)594
Order G.C. Bharuka, J.The Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law for an answer by this court as required under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 263 in view of the Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , although the point involved was not the subject-matter of appeal ?'2. The assessee is a company deriving income from extracting iron ore. For the assessment year 1983-84 to which this reference relates, the assessee had declared a loss of Rs. 5,00,16,716. The assessing officer completed the assessment on 27-3-1986, under section 143(2) of the Act by determining the net loss at Rs. 3,04,91,342. This order is placed at Annexure-A. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of assessment on three accounts ...
Cit Vs. Gogte Textiles Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Kar)13
ORDERG. C. Bharuka, JThis reference is made to this court by the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The question of law involved herein is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the commission paid to the agents on actual sales cannot form sales promotion expenses ?'2. The assessee is a limited company. While framing the assessment order for the assessment year 1985-86, the assessing officer, among various other additions/disallowances, took into consideration the commission paid to the agents, for the purpose of disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Act. He also deducted the amount of central subsidy received by the assessee from the cost of the assets to arrive at the depreciation allowable for the year. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the commission paid to the agents should not be taken into consideration for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »