Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-06-1982
Reported in : (1984)39CTR(Kar)195; [1984]145ITR329(KAR); [1984]145ITR329(Karn); [1985]23TAXMAN93(Kar)
Venkatachalaiah, J. 1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment for the year 1974-75 could be made only in accordance with section 188 and the single assessment for the whole year was not valid ?' 2. The assessee, M/s. Shambulal Nathalal & Company, a firm of partners constituted under a deed of partnership dated July 17, 1950, consisted of 4 partners, viz., Rashiklal Nathalal, Jayantilal, Jawaharlal and Krishna Prabu. The instrument of partnership did not provide that the firm would continue after the death of any partner. On January 9, 1973, Rashiklal Nathalal, one of the partners, died, whereupon the accounts of the firm were made up to January 9, 1973, profit and loss account drawn up and the profits distributed to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-15-1982
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1787
ORDERBopanna, J.42. On the pleadings of the parties and the competing contentions of their Learned Counsel, the following general points arise for consideration in these batches of petitions :(1) Did the draft notifications dated 30-7-1981 containing the proposals of the Government for revising/fixing the minimum wages and published in the Government Gazette dated 6-8-1981, comply with the requirements of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act If not, are those notifications bad in law and vitiate the final notifications impugned in these proceedings ?(2) Was there a consideration by the Government of all the representations against the proposals for fixation/revision of minimum wages as required under Section 5(2) of the Act ?(3) If there was no consideration of those representations, what is the effect of such non-consideration ?(4) Was there any consultation between the Government and the Board as required under the proviso to Section 5(1)(b) of the Act (in short 'the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-22-1982
Reported in : [1985]57CompCas668(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated December 12, 1980, passed by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 2530 of 1980. 2. The appeal raises some questions of considerable importance as to the constraint on banking institutions to charge interest on loans/advances/overdrafts or any other financial accommodation and the power of courts to examine the rigour of such transaction and give relief to the debtor by calling into aid the usury enactments. 3. The facts, in brief, are these : One D. S. Gowda was allotted a site No. 132/4 at Rajamahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore, by the Bangalore Development Authority. He wanted to construct some residential flats in that site. He approached M/s. Corporation Bank', readily acceded to his request and gave advance and overdraft facilities. D. S. Gowda took the loan and commenced construction. The loan sectioned was perhaps found insufficient. So, he could neither finish the building nor repay...
Tag this Judgment!