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 : Dec-09-1982
Reported in : [1985]58CompCas609(Kar)
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. Company Application No. 49 of 1977 is filed by the State Bank of Mysore having its head office on Kempegowda Road Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank'). The application is presumably under s. 446(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is necessary to mention here that the bank has filed earlier Company Application No. 142 of 1976 seeking therein an order of this court restraining the first respondent-official liquidator therein from making payment of income-tax in respect of M/s. Mysore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd., a public limited company incorporated under the Act and which was by an order dated December 14, 1973, order to be wound up by this court in Company Petition No. 15 of 1972 filed by the State Trading Corporation of India, New Delhi, a creditor, in as much as the bank was a secured creditor and was entitled to preferential payment even before the tax dues, if any, were settled. While that petition ...
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 : Feb-05-1982
Reported in : 1983(2)KarLJ105; [1984]55STC93(Kar)
ORDERVenkatachaliah, J.1. These writ petitions are amongst the batch of writ petitions challenging the levy of an additional tax on turnover under section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 [as substituted by section 3 of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 (Karnataka Act 7 of 1981)]. As the contentions urged are common, all the writ petitions were heard together so that all the learned counsel appearing in the cases are afforded an opportunity of being heard. The writ petitions now disposed of by this order are, so far as the contentions raised and urged are concerned, representative of the batch. The other petitions in the batch will be disposed of in convenient batches following this pronouncement. 2. The petitioners are 'dealers' registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 6B of the 'Act', as it presently obtains, was substituted in place of the old section 6B, by section 3 of the Karnataka Act 7 of 1981. Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-05-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Kant251
Sabhahit, J.1. This Appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-5-1978 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in Matrimonial Case No. 10 of 1973, on his file, allowing the petition of the wife Mrs. Melba Dolores Pais for judicial separation and for custody of children, instituted Under Ss. 22 and 23 read with S. 41 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, (here in after referred to as the Act).2. The relevant petition averments in brief are as follows:The petitioner and the respondent in the petition are Indian Christians. They were married on 21-8-19,61 in h1flagres Church. Mangalore, and. they last resided together at 25A, Magrath Road, Civil station, Bangalore. They have three sons born out of wedlock.The Petitioner and the respondent were not known to each other prior to their marriage. The engagement ceremony in respect of the marriage look place on 21-8-1961. Since marriage, their life has not been smooth and happy. The in-laws of the pet...
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!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-05-1982
Reported in : (1983)ILLJ30Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In these writ appeals and the writ petitions referred to the Division Bench under S. 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, three inter-related questions of law arise for consideration. They are : '(i) Whether a person employed in an industry but placed on probation, who would be a 'workman' as defined in S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (The Act for short) after confirmation or absorption, is a workman during the period of probation within the meaning of that expression as defined in that provision (ii) Whether the discharge of such workman during the period of probation, amounts to retrenchment as defined in S. 2(oo) of the Act and (iii) Whether non-compliance with the conditions precedent for effecting retrenchment, prescribed under S. 25-F(a) and (b) of the Act, while discharging a workman on probation after he has put in a continuous service of one year or more within the meaning of S. 25-B of the Act renders the order of discharge void ?' 2. The facts of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-11-1982
Reported in : [1983]53STC240(Kar)
ORDERVenkatachaliah, J.1. The matters arise under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act). In these writ petitions, the notices issued by the revisional authority under the 'Act' proposing to revise the assessment orders so as to bring to tax the purchase turnover in old gold and silver articles are challenged. 2. The impugned notices initiating the proceedings for revision proceed on the premise that the exemption in respect of such purchase turnover available under Notification No. S.O. 2048 dated 10th September, 1970, issued by the Government under section 8-A of the Act stood, in view of the pronouncement of a learned single Judge of this Court in Shrishailappa v. Commercial Tax Officer, Jamkhandi [1975] 36 STC 223 cancelled whenever there was a modification in the rate of tax and that in this case there has been such a modification resulting in the exemption ceasing to apply. It is to be noted that in K. Janardhana Acharya v. State of Karnataka [1980] 46 STC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-16-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Kant264; ILR1982KAR121; 1982(1)KarLJ485
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated November 24, 1973 made by the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore decreeing the original Suit No. 30 of 1970 for specific performance of a contract.The facts are shortly as follows:-2. Mr. Venugopal was the owner of a house bearing Municipal No. 1869, situated at an important locality in Mysore City. He was residing there along with his wife Ranganayakamma alias Rangamani. They were defendants in the suit instituted by Govinda Narayan for specific performance of an agreement Ext. P-1 dated November 17, 1969. The case of the plaintiff was that both the defendants agreed inter alia to sell that house in his favour for Rs. 21,000/within three months there from. They received Rs. 3,000/- as advance and the balance of R,3. 18,000/- was agreed to be payable at the time of registration of the sale deed. The period of three months set out in the agreement for execution of the sale deed expired on February 17...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-16-1982
Reported in : 1982(2)KarLJ97; (1982)IILLJ221Kant
1. An unfortunate dispute which should not normally arise among the higher echeons of the Indian Police Service borne on the Karnataka cadre, has arisen between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 to the posts of Inspector General of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'IGP') and Director General of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'Director') of the Government of Karnataka. But, this court is exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, cannot avoid determining the same, for which reason it is necessary to notice the salient facts in the first instance and, thereafter deal with the questions that arise for determination. 2. On 10-8-1946, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Superintendent of Police in the then princely State of Mysore. On the merger of the said State in the Indian Union and the formation of the new State of Mysore now called as Karnataka, under the States Reorganisation Act, the services of the petitioner stood allott...
Tag this Judgment!