Karnataka High Court Judgements

Judges: K Puttaswamy, R Mahendra

30 March, 1985·5. The Commissioner has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners as not maintainable on the ground that the order of the A.I.T.O. challenged by them was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 6. Section 35(1) of the Act, which confers power of revision on the Commissioner th...

Judges: Kudoor

29 March, 1985·2. Although the notice of the Writ Petition was served upon the Respondents, none appeared in the initial stage. The Court directed the Tahsildar and Secretary of the land Tribunal, Hadagali to be present before the Court with the original records and when he ultimately appeared before the Court wit...

Judges: J Shetty, C Urs

28 March, 1985·With these and other averments, Madhava Rao has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. On these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following among other, issues : (1) Whether the deceased Kamalabai was ill when the Will dated 10-6-1967 was executed as alleged in the plaint ? (2) Whether the Will ha...

Judges: S Hakeem

26 March, 1985·Secs. 213 and 57 : "213. Right as executor or legatee when established. -- (1) No right as executor or legatee can be established. in any court of justice, unless a court of competent jurisdiction in (India) has granted probate of the Will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of ...

Judges: Venkatachala

26 March, 1985·3. The Court below has made the order under revision, on its view that the petitioner here had not placed any document to show that in law, he represents the estate of the deceased tenant, though it had come to the conclusion that the documents produced by the petitioner here indicated that he was r...

Judges: K Puttaswamy, R Mahendra

26 March, 1985·1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing expenditure of a sum of Rs. 8,881 and Rs. 9,342 for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 respectively incurred by the assessee company as falling under section 35B(l)(b) ?" 6. Sri. K. Sriniv...

Judges: K Puttaswamy, R Mahendra

25 March, 1985·3. In pursuance of a technical collaboration agreement between the assessee and M/s. Bernard Golay S.A., a Swiss company, a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs was paid by the former to the latter before March 31, 1973. 4. For the assessment year 1973-74 relevant to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1973, the...

Judges: K J Shetty, M C Urs

25 March, 1985·8. The Bank even filed a reply, which was no more than the reiteration of the plaint allegations. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as 9 issues. Issue No. I was whether the plaintiff due to enforcement of bank guarantee paid Rs. 43,592-46 on 8-3-1967 and therefore defendants wer...

Judges: K Puttaswamy, N Kudoor

20 March, 1985·But, this section as in the case of many other provisions of the Act, has not remained in the same form from 1st October, 1957. 14. Section 13 as amended by the later amending Acts omitting sub-sections (3) and (4) of that section that is not material, as it stands at present and as on 29th January,...

Judges: M Rao

19 March, 1985·8. To examine the contentions urged in this appeal, it is necessary to find out the relevant provisions of the C.P.C., the objects and reasons for the amendment to these provisions. Order 23, R. 3 has been amended by Act No. 104 of 1976. Rule 3A has also been added by the said amendment. Similarly, ...