1
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-31-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Kant175; ILR1997KAR742; 1997(1)KarLJ49
ORDER1. The brief facts leading to these cases are that Mrs. Hildred Joyce Faithful executed a Will dt. 17-11-87 bequeathing all her properties to the persons mentions therein. In that Will 2 persons viz. Mrs. Certrude June Dalby and Mrs. Cheryl Margurite Soggee were to be the executors of her last Will and were jointly entitled to execute and charge calculate at 3% of the gross value of her estate for administration of her estate legal fees etc. The testator died on 31-10-1988 at Bangalore. Thereafter on 22-2-89 the proposed executor filed Pro. C.P. 4/89 for grant of Probate of the Will dt. 17-11-87. In that case, the caveat was entered and the citationwas issued in Deccan Herald dt. 25-3-99. In response to this general notice also, none has come forward to oppose the grant of Probate The first executrix having died since before the filing of the Probate C. P. and as this Court felt that there is no impediment to grant the probate in favour of Mrs. Cheryl Margurite Soggee -- Petr. her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-06-1996
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ189
1. Having failed in the departmental examination, S.A.S. Part-II held in the month of August 1991, the respondent-I herein filed a writ petition in this Court for issuance of appropriate directions to get his papers re-evaluated as he had expected more marks than awarded to him. During the pendency of the writ, answer paper No. IV pertaining to Commercial Accounting System and Internal Audit was got re-evaluated by the Examiner but the respondent 1 did not pass. On his prayer Sri Sadanand, Advocate, who had served as Deputy Accountant General before his retirement was appointed as a Commissioner/Evaluator and on the basis of his report the writ petitioner was declared to have passed the examination in the aforesaid paper vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.2. Some of the facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the appeal are that the Karnataka Electricity Board has prescribed several departmental examinations for various categories of posts existing in the Electricity Board...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-09-1996
Reported in : ILR1996KAR3595; 1996(7)KarLJ712
H.N. Narayan, J.1. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.6.1991 alleging that the defendant is the owner in possession of the suit house, and agreed to sell the same for consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- and executed the deed of Agreement dated 10.6.1991 exhibit P-1. Defendant received an advance of Rs. 30,000/- on the date of agreement agreeing to receive the balance of consideration within three months from the date of agreement and to execute the sale deed. But the 'defendant failed to execute the sale deed inspite of repeated requests. The defendant according to plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract even though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence the suit for specific performance.2. Defendant has not disputed execution of the agreement exhibit P-1 and the advance of Rs. 30,000/-. He has also not disputed that he had agreed to receive the balance of Rs. 1,01,000/- wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-09-1996
Reported in : (1996)136CTR(Kar)513; ILR1996KAR2837; [1997]223ITR112(KAR); [1997]223ITR112(Karn)
Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. The Tribunal, Bangalore, has at the instance of the Revenue, referred to this Court the following three questions, for opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 99 lakhs agreed to be paid by the assessee to GEC for premature termination of its distributor's agreement is an allowable deduction, as revenue expenditure (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the protocol dt. 28th Nov., 1972 had not been superseded by cl. 13 of the agreement dt. 10th Feb., 1972 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the agreement to pay Rs. 99 lakhs as compensation to GEC was reasonable and was one made on account of commercial expediency ?' 2. The assessee hereinafter referred to as 'MICO' for short, is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of Spark Plugs and...
Tag this Judgment!