Karnataka Court December 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rangappa Srinivasa Prabhu Vs. Bhoja and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1983
Reported in: 1984(1)KarLJ466
1. R. S. Prabhu, the petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the accused by the Sessions Judge, Lakshina Kannada in Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1979, has preferred this revision. 2. The appeal before the Sessions Judge had arisen out of the judgment dated 31-10-1979 of the Additional Munsiff &. J.M.F.C., Udupi in C.C. No. 1042 of 1975 on his file. 3. That was a case in which, on the complaint of this Prabhu, the police of Hiriadka had charge-sheeted the accused-respondents 1 to 4 herein for offences under S. 325 read with S. 34, Penal Code. 4. The learned Magistrate, who had tried the accused on these charges, found each of them guilty for offences under S. 324 r/w S. 34, Penal Code, and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for nine months. The learned Magistrate was also of the view that that was not a case in which he should extend the benefit of S. 360, Cr.P.C., 1973 (Code) to them. 5. In the appeal they had preferred the learned Sessio...
Francis Jerone Fernandis Vs. Anthony Pedad Cardoza
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant226
1. The defendant in O. S. No. 40/1972 on the file of the I Additional Munsiff, Karwar, is the appellant and the plaintiff is the respondent in this appeal. 2. The plaintiff brought the suit O. S. No. 40/1972 against the defendant for recovery of possession of the suit premises and arrears of rent together with future mesne profits. The suit was based on the allegations that the defendant has taken the suit premises on lease from the plaintiff agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. The defendant has paid the rents at the rate of Rs. 5/- p.m. for some time. Later he failed to pay the rent as agreed. Hence the plaintiff caused a lawyers' notice dt. 28-3-1972 to be issued to the defendant terminating his tenancy. The said notice was served on the defendant on 29-3-1972. In the said notice, the plaintiff also called upon the defendant to pay all the arrears of rent and also to deliver vacant possession of the premises in question. Since the defendant neither paid the arrears nor handed ...
M.G. Mahat and anr. Vs. Shivaputrappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1983
Reported in: ILR1984KAR266; 1984(1)KarLJ343
ORDER1. The 1st respondent had pledged some gold articles with the State Bank of India Branch at Hunugund. He is the complainant in the case. He filed a private complaint on 15-1-1983 in the court under S. 200 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 (the Code) not merely against these petitioners but also against the Manager of that Bank, C. S. Damanakara. The averments in the complaint were that he had pledged some gold articles belonging to him with the Bank; had secured a loan of Rs. 1,500/- had later on 9-12-1982, approached the Bank with the principal and interest due on the loan, with a request to the Bank authorities to return the pledged articles, that when the articles were shown for being returned he found that they were not the ones he had pledged but were of an inferior quality and value that therefore; had declined to obtain return of the same and that since the three accused, who had been entrusted with the articles had committed criminal breach of trust re : the same they were liable to be...
Mysore Cements Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1983
Reported in: [1985]59STC193(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These two revision petitions by the common assessee are concerned with the validity of the assessment for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68. 2. The petitioner is a company, which manufactures and sells cement. It is registered as a dealer both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act. During the relevant assessment periods, the company submitted quarterly returns along with payment of advance tax under rule 21 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. Rule 21 as it then stood provided for filing such returns in the case of a dealer, whose annual turnover exceeded Rs. 40,000. The company, however, did not file annual returns. 3. On 13th August, 1970 rule 21 was repealed. On 29th November, 1975 the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, who was the concerned assessing authority, made two assessments, one under the State Act and another under the Central Act for each of the two years in question. These assessments have been upheld by the appellate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›