Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 1984 Page 1 of about 32 results (0.008 seconds)

Jun 27 1984 (HC)

Fathimabi Vs. Mehboob

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jun-27-1984

Reported in : ILR1985KAR393

..... vacate the premises.5. whereas is the meantime, on account of the failing health of the 1st party a proposal for settlement of the case hasbeen made, and with the mediation of common friends who are witnesses to this agreement it is de-sired that in the mutual interest of both the parties, an agreement is made settling the dispute to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1984 (HC)

Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. Vs. Kooky Roadways P. Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-07-1984

Reported in : [1986]60CompCas1069(Kar)

1. this is a petition presented to this court under section 433(e) of the companies act by m/s. kudremukh iron ore co. ltd., a govt. of india enterprise. the prayer is for an order of this court directing the winding up of the respondent - kooky roadways private limited, incorporated and registered under the companies act, 1956, having its registered office at bangalore. the respondent-company is a private carrier of goods. in other words, its business was in transport. it is alleged by the petitioner that the respondent was entrusted to transport steel materials form bangalore to mangalore where the petitioner has an office at panambur, d. k. dist. in the course of such transportation, the petitioner discovered that the respondent had short delivered a quantity of 131.630 metric tonnes of the steel materials entrusted for carriage. when this was brought to the notice of the respondent-company, the managing director of the respondent-company, one mr. ismail, wrote back station that full responsibility was assumed by him as the steel materials were misplaced while loading and unloading and, therefore, could not be delivered at mangalore. he further guaranteed that by january 24, 1983, he would arrange to transport and deliver a minimum of 40 tonnes of steel. he also undertook to report further progress in person in that regard on january 24, 1983. except delivering a small quantity of about 9 tonnes, nothing happened thereafter despite numerous letter written by the chief .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1984 (HC)

Sri Sidharood Swamy Math Trust Committee Vs. Mallappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-13-1984

Reported in : ILR1985KAR1440; 1985(1)KarLJ331

nesargi, j.1. the appellants are plaintiffs 1 and 2 in case no. 128/1/1975 in the court of the munsiff, yelburga. the respondents are defendant no. 1's legal representatives and defendant no. 2 in the case. the subject matter of the suit consist of two lands-s. no. 828 oftadkal village and s. no. 2 of talbal village, yelburgra taluk. the plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the lands and for declaration that plaintiff no. 2 or in the alternative plaintiff no. 1 is entitled to get the sale proceeds of the crop that stood on s. no. 2 amounting to rs. 1,000/- which amount is lying in court deposit and for mesne profits of the suit lands for the years 1956-57 and also for future mesne profits. the trial court decreed the suit on 23-12-1959. the defendants preferred r.a. no. 2 of 1970 in the court of the district judge, raichur. the district judge allowed the appeal and reversed the judgement and decree of the trial court on 15-7-1974. the judgement and decree of the lower appellate court is challenged in this appeal.2. the simple case of the plaintiffs is that balavva wife of basappa being the original owner who inherited the suit property from her mother rudrayva executed a registered will ex. p.5 in the year 1919(5-10-1328 fasli) bequeathing them in favour of plaintiff no. 1. she died issueless. after her death plaintiff no. 1 took over possession of the suit lands. plaintiff no. 1 leased the suit lands to plaintiff no. 2 in 1953. plaintiff no. 2 continued to be in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 1984 (HC)

Monnanda Nanaiah Vs. Balladichanda Caveriamma

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-08-1984

Reported in : ILR1985KAR1599

nesargi, j.1. this appeal is by defendants 3 and 8 in o.s.no. 16 of 1970 in the court of the civil judge, coorg, mercara. rcspondent-1 is the plaintiff and the remaining respondentsare the rest of the defendants. the suit property is jamma wet land measuring 3.75 acres in s.no. 56 of kukloor village, in virajpet nad.2. the facts are that this land originally belonged to one cariappa. cariappa had two sons by name devaiah and aiyappa. there was partition between devaiah and aiyappa and this land fell to the share of devaiah. thereafter devaiah expired in the year 1943 leaving behind him only his daughter the plaintiff. defendants 3 and 8 are the sons of aiyappa. defendants 2 to 7 also belong to monnanda family i.e., parental family of the plaintiff. defendant-1 belongs to one karnanda family. after the death of deviah, the property devolved on the plaintiff. she enjoyed it as owner. on 20-4-1950 the plaintiff mortgaged this property in favour of defendant-1 by a registered deed ext. d-4, equal to exhibit p-1 (certified copy). this wasusufructuary mortgage in favour of defendant-1 stipulating that he should pay himself the mortgage money out of the rent and profits of the land enjoying the same for 12 years. on 28-4-1950 defendant-1 assigned his right to defendant-2 and husband of defendant-7 by executing a registered deed as per exhibit p-2. the plaintiff mortgaged this property to defendant-1 to secure money for her marriage. she got married. on 15-3-1952 defendants 3 and 8 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 1984 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii, Bangalore Vs. Mysore Iron an ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-26-1984

Reported in : (1985)46CTR(Kar)93; ILR1985KAR1499; [1986]157ITR531(KAR); [1986]157ITR531(Karn)

k. jagannatha shetty, j. 1. the income-tax appellate tribunal, bangalore bench, has referred the following question under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961 (the act) : 'whether after an original assessment, an order of rectification has been made and subsequently there is a reassessment under section 147 of the income-tax act, 1961, whether the time-limit provided under section 154 of the act should be computed from the date of the earlier order of rectification or from the date of the order of reassessment ?' 2. the facts behind the legal formulation are as follows : the assessee is a company and the assessment for the year 1963-64 was completed under section 143(3) on march 23, 1965. in that order, the rebate under section 84 was worked out as admissible to the extent of rs. 7,69,233. the assessee by a letter dated june 16, 1965, invited the attention of the income-tax officer (i.t.o.) that there was a mistake in the calculation of the average capital and the rebate should be restricted to rs. 6,59,368 against the larger amount allowed in the assessment. consequently, the income-tax officer made an order of rectification under section 154 on february 25, 1967, restricting the rebate under section 84 to rs. 6,59,368. 3. subsequently, the above assessment was reopened under section 147(a) and the reopened assessment was completed on march 15, 1973. in this assessment also, the rebate allowed under section 84 was taken as rs. 6,59,368 as determined finally in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1984 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Datacons (P.) Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-20-1984

Reported in : (1985)47CTR(Kar)162; ILR1985KAR1109; [1985]155ITR66(KAR); [1985]155ITR66(Karn)

jagannatha shetty, j.1. this is a reference under s. 256(1) of the i.t. act, 1961, and the question of law referred is : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal is correct in law in treating the assessee either as a manufacturer of goods or as engaged in the processing of goods within the meaning of section 2(7)(c) of the finance (no. 2) act, 1977 ?' 2. the assessee is a company. it claimed that it was an industrial company as defined under s. 2(7)(c) of the finance (no. 2) act, 1977. if it was an industrial company, it would be entitled to be taxed at a concessional rate. the ito rejected that claim and assessed the income by applying normal rate of taxation, but in appeal before the aac, the assessee succeeded. 3. the department preferred an appeal before the tribunal. the tribunal after hearing the arguments, made a local inspection of the assessee's premises to know what the assessee was really doing. the members of the tribunal personally observed the operation of the computers installed by the assessee. a note was also prepared by the learned counsel for the assessee and given to the members of the tribunal. that note gives the full description of the activities of the assessee with the help of the computers. the members of the tribunal, after personal observation and after considering the note given by the assessee's representative, observed : 'it may be stated that the data which the assessee receives in the form of cash .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 16 1984 (HC)

B.V. Narayana Reddy and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-16-1984

Reported in : AIR1985Kant99; ILR1984KAR631

venkatachaliah, j. 1. this petition under art. 226 of the constitution raises an interesting question as to the scope of the karnataka ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1961 ('act' for short). petitioner seek a mandamus to the state government to consider and dispose of their representation dt.10-4-1983 as to the question of declaring the 'attara cutcherry', a government building in which the karnataka high court is housed, as a 'protected monument' under s. 4 of the said act. the petition is filed as sequel to the government order no. dpar/188/shc/82 dt. 24-3-1982 which has accorded administrative approval for the demolition of the existing 'attara cutcherry' and for the construction of a new high court building on the site. this petition is before us on its reference to a division bench by swami, j.2. petitioners in their efforts to avert the demolition of this ancient building, which they cherish as a cultural-heritage and as an enduring source of enrichment of the environmental beauty and cultural-tone of the city of bangalore, now appeal to the provisions of the 'act'. they have also challenged the decision of government as an arbitrary decision uninformed by relevant considerations.3.the state of karnataka, respondent1, has opposed this petition and has sought to justify its decision as one arrived at after a careful consideration of all factors relevant to the decision. it has also contended that petitioners can-not be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1984 (HC)

Noorera Papu Vs. Machimada Kushalappa

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-19-1984

Reported in : ILR1985KAR901; 1985(1)KarLJ174

orderk. a. swami, j.1. this civil revision petition under section 115 of the code of civil procedure, is preferred against the order dated 17th august, 1983, passed by the district judge, kodagu, madikeri, in h.r.c.r.p. no. 21/81, confirming the order of eviction passed under section 21(l)(a) and (j) of the karnataka rent control act. (hereinafter-referred to as the 'act') by the principal munsiff, virajpet, in h.r.c. no. 27 of 1978.2. respondents 1 to 4 were the landlords of the premises in question. petitioner was the tenant. the monthly rent of the permises was rs.35/-. as the petitioner had fallen in arrears of rent, the respondents sent a notice dated 29-3-1978 by registered post. the same was not received by the petitioner-tenant. after refusal of the notice sent by registered post, the respondents got the notice affixed on the outer door of the premises in question on 2-4-1978 and filed the petition for eviction under section 21(1)(a) and (j) of the act, on 28-8-197 ; in the court of the munsiff, virajpet.3. the petitioner contested the proceeding. on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case, the learned munsiff came to the conclusion that as the petitioner refused to receive the notice, it must be deemed to have been served upon him; that he was in arrears of rent and that the premise was reasonably and bonafide required by the respondents for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a new building in place of the existing one. accordingly, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1984 (HC)

Binny Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-06-1984

Reported in : 1985(6)ECC71; 1985LC690(Karnataka); 1986(25)ELT154(Kar)

order1. m/s. binny limited, a public company incorporated under the companies act, which is the petitioner, is engaged in the manufacture of textile goods in one of its composite textile mills called 'bangalore woollen cotton and silk mills' situated at bangalore city. prior to 24th july, 1972 the petitioner had manufactured 17,381-30 kgs. of blended yearn ('yarn') with 50% terene, (and) consumed the same in the manufacture of a fabric called 'cascade'. 2. 'blended yarn' and 'fabrics' were dutiable to excise duty under tariff items nos. 18-e, and 19(1)(2)(sic) respectively of the central excises and salt act of 1944 (central act 1 of 1944) ('the act'). but, under rule 96v and w of the central excise rules of 1944 ('the rules) and notification no. 62/72 ce dated 17th march, 1972 issued thereto by government, the collection of excise duty on blended yarn was postponed to the point the clearance of 'fabric' made out of such yarn, which is called as 'compounded levy'. admittedly government in its notification nos. 168 and 169 of 1972 dated 24th july, 1972 ('notifications') modified the aforesaid scheme and later withdrew the aforesaid notification and abolished the compounded levy scheme on blended yarn. 3. on the sole basis of the notification no. 169 of 1972 dated 24th july, 1972, the superintendent of central excise, concurrent assessment and inspection group, bangalore-5 ('the superintendent') by his notice no. gi-6(bm)/72 dated 2nd december, 1972 (exhibit-a) called upon the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1984 (HC)

T.S. Nagaraj Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jan-17-1984

Reported in : AIR1984Kant157

order1. among others, the petitioner is the owner of land bearing sy. number 152/1a of tagdur village, nanjangud taluka, measuring 3 acres 28 guntas. as a progressive farmer, the petitioner has sunk an irrigation well in the land and has installed an irrigation pump set to draw water and cultivate the same.2. in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 3(1) of the karnataka acquisition of land for grant of house sites act, 1972 (karnataka act 18 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the act), the deputy commissioner, mysore district. mysore (hereinafter referred to as the dc) issued preliminary notification no. li vpc 30hla 76 dated 11-3-1976 (published in the karnataka gazette extraordinary dated 22-4-1976) (exhibit-c) proposing to acquire sy. no. 152/la owned by the petitioner and another land bearing sy. no. 149/ owned by one smt. madamma for purposes of providing sites to houseless and sightless people of the village, which was objected to by the petitioner and smt. madamma on diverse grounds. apparently accepting the objections of the petitioner and smt. madamma, the dc did not pursue that notification and did not issue any final notification under section 3(4) of the act. with this, the petitioner expected that his problems had ended. but, also that did not happen.3. in notification no. laq.sr-2c9l/7879 dated 6-12-1978 (annexure-d) published in the karnataka gazette dated 21-12-1978, the dc again proposed to acquire an extent of 2 acres of land only in sy. no. .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //