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in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the protocol dt. 28th Nov., 1972 had not been superseded by cl. 13 of the agreement dt. 10th Feb., 1972 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the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!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 : 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 : 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 : Jan-17-1996
Reported in : AIR1996Kant214; ILR1996KAR1998; 1996(1)KarLJ461
ORDER1. These are landlord's revision petitions against a common order dated 30-9-1988 in H.R.C. Nos. 191/84 and 193/84 and three other cases which had been filed by the petitioner under Section 21(1)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (here in afterwards referred to as 'the Act') praying for eviction of the respondents from the petition schedule property namely portions of the premises bearing No. 5 (old No. 16/3) situated in II Cross, Ramkrishnapuram, Bangalore. By the said common order, the trial Judge dismissed all the eviction petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed these revision petitions. Since the landlords are common in these petitions and the property is different portions of the same premises in the two petitions, and common evidence has been recorded by the trial Court relating to all the five petitions in H.R.C. No. 191/84, and all the petitions have been disposed of by a common order by the trial Court, a common order is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-07-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Kant122; (1997)IILLJ239Kant
ORDER1. This set of five petitions relate to an order of rustication passed by the Principal of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar College, Bangalore against the six petitioners on November 20, 1995. The petitioners are all Medical Students prosecuting their studies with the college in question and the respondent - Principal had passed the order on the ground that the petitioners have involved themselves in serious act of misconduct/indisclpline. There are certain other proceedings that have been instituted against these petitioners with which we are not immediately concerned. The issues involved in this case are of deep significance insofar as they concern two vital areas the first of them being the question as to what should be the attitude or role of the Courts in cases relating to action that follows proven misconduct and secondly, certain aspects of priority insofar as whether at all the Courts should interfere in these cases and in those of the ones where the Court is required to take judicial n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-02-1996
Reported in : ILR1996KAR2882; [1997]225ITR590(KAR); [1997]225ITR590(Karn); 1997(42)KarLJ18
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dt. 28th Oct., 1994 passed by the Appropriate Authority (Respondent No. 1) by which it has treated the statement filed in the prescribed Form No. 37-I as required under s. 269UC of the IT Act, 1961, as non est in law and has thereby refused to exercise its powers under Chapter XX-C either to purchase the property in question or to issue no objection certificate under s. 269UL(3) of the said Act. There is a further prayer of issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issue the statutory no objection certificate forthwith. 2. The first petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The second petitioner is one of its shareholders. According to the them the petitioner-company is the absolute owner of 45 acres of land with superstructures standing thereon being a part of the property, known as 'the Bangalore Palace Prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-02-1996
Reported in : (1997)139CTR(Kar)220
ORDERG. C. BHARUKA, J. :This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dt. 28th Oct., 1994 passed by the Appropriate Authority (Respondent No. 1) by which it has treated the statement filed in the prescribed Form No. 37-I as required under s. 269UC of the IT Act, 1961, as non est in law and has thereby refused to exercise its powers under Chapter XX-C either to purchase the property in question or to issue no objection certificate under s. 269UL(3) of the said Act. There is a further prayer of issuance of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to issue the statutory no objection certificate forthwith.2. The first petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The second petitioner is one of its shareholders. According to the them the petitioner-company is the absolute owner of 45 acres of land with superstructures standing thereon being a part of the property, known as the Bangalore Palace Proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-12-1996
Reported in : AIR1996Kant348; ILR1996KAR1957; 1996(3)KarLJ114
ORDER1. Though this matter was listed for preliminary hearing, the same was taken-up for final disposal by consent of both sides.2. This is a revision petition filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 10182/85, on the file of the IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, under Sec. 115 of C.P.C., challenging the validity of the order passed by the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on 27-2-96 in O.S. No. 10182/85, rejecting the request of the petitioner's Counsel to exhibit an affidavit sworn to by P.W. 1 (the respondent/plaintiff). The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10182/85, on the file of the IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The plaintiff has filed the suif for a declaration declaring the plaintiff and his family members have a right of common enjoyment of the suit schedule property and usufruct from the coconut and other fruit yielding trees, directing the defendants to pay regularly the plaintiffs share of usufruct from coconut and fruit trees and on their failure, the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-10-1996
Reported in : ILR1996KAR3076; 1996(6)KarLJ90
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. This judgment will dispose of W.P.15082/86 and W.P.15083/1986 as common questions of law and facts arise in these petitions.2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the Writ Petitions may be noticed. They are -Petitioners are directly recruited as First Division Clerks in the Office of Corporation of City of Bangalore on 19th November, 1975 and on 17th October, 1975 respectively. Petitioners in the Writ Petitions seem to be aggrieved mainly because of the fitment given to respondents - 3 to 6 above petitioners in the provisional seniority list of First Division Clerk prepared as on 1.1.1981 and published and circulated in the memo dated 20.6.1984. In the said list, 1st petitioner is placed at Sl.No. 47 and 2nd petitioner at Sl.No. 45 respectively, whereas respondents 3 to 6 are placed above petitioners at Sl.Nos. 3,5,7 and 25. According to the averments made in the Writ Petitions, respondents-3 to 6 had joined the services of the respondent-Corporation as Family ...
Tag this Judgment!