Karnataka Court March 1984 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.
State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Thimmappa H.S. and Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR933
ORDER1. The Criminal Revisions are under S. 397 read with S. 401 of the Criminal P.C. 1973 (the Code), and the Criminal Petitions, under S. 482 thereof. 2. These have arisen out of two proceedings. (Crl. Appeal No. 8 of 1983 and Crl. Appeal No. 7 of 1983). Both the appeals were decided by the 6th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, on 23-5-1983. 3. While challenging those two proceedings, the State has not merely preferred the two revisions but, as a matter of caution, also the two petitions aforesaid. 4. Since the proceedings involve common questions of law and facts they were heard together. 5. A preliminary point was raised at the outset by the counsel appearing for the respondent questioning the jurisdiction of this court to entertain these petitions. Accordingly both sides were heard on this aspect. 6. A few facts : (a) Under the Karnataka Silkworm Seed Cocoon and Silk Yarn (Regulation of Production, Supply, Distribution and Sale) Act 1959 (the Act), the Director of...
Globe Detective Agency P. Ltd. Vs. Subbiah Machine Tools P. Ltd. and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1984
Reported in: [1985]58CompCas271(Kar); 1984(2)KarLJ207
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This is a petition presented by M/s. Globe Detective Agency P. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), under section 433(e) and (f) praying this Hon'ble court to wind up respondent No. 1, Sri Subbiah Machine Tools P. Ltd., also a company incorporated under the Act. Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 are its directors. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case is that by letter dated September 17, 1981, the petitioner company came to be appointed for making arrangements for security guards at the factory premises of the first respondent company. The security arrangements came into effect from January 23, 1981, and the security arrangements made would cost a monthly payment of Rs. 2,950 to the respondent company. The security unit provided by the petitioner company consisted of five security guards, one reliever and one head guard, total being seven persons in all. After this arrangement, there appears to hav...
S.V. Halavapalli and Sons and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1984
Reported in: [1984]57STC343(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. Common question arises for consideration in these writ petitions filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, and they are, therefore, heard and disposed of by this common order. In order to appreciate the common question, we first propose to notice the facts in Writ Petition No. 25396 of 1982, W.P. No. 11441 of 1983 and W.P. No. 12224 of 1982 as illustrative only. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 25396 of 1982 is a dealer in fertilisers, insecticides and certified seeds of maize, bajra, jowar, etc., in Krishna Nagar, Sandur Taulk. He purchases this seeds from others. He is registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Hospet, respondent 3, by this order made on 22nd November, 1980, determined the gross turnover for the period from 1st April, 1979, to 31st March, 1980, i.e., for the assessment year 1979-80 at Rs. 60,000 but allowed exemption treating the seeds as falling under...
S. Bangarappa Vs. Ganesh Narayan Hegde and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR278
ORDER1. This is a revision by the petitioner, who was accused 1 in C.C. No. 2888/1983 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli City. 2. The complainant filed a complaint for the offence under S. 500, IPC, against accused 1 who is said to have made an alleged defamatory statement and also against accused 2 and 3 who are the Printer and Publisher and Editor of Samyukta Karnataka Daily, published in Hubli. The accused 1 is said to have called a Press Conference on 28th April, 1983 at Bangalore and is said to have made the alleged defamatory statement at that Press Conference. The said statement was published in various newspapers including Samyukta Karnataka Daily published in Hubli. That Samyukta Karnataka Paper was published at Hubli on 29-4-1983. The complainant feeling that the publication of the said statement said to have been made by accused 1 amounted to an offence of defamation as defamation as defined by S. 499, IPC, has filed a complaint in the Court of the J.M.F.C. ...
Veerarajendra Corporation Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1984
Reported in: [1985]58STC199(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The common question raised in these two revision petitions is whether trichloroethylene is a 'heavy chemical' covered by item No. 79 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (called shortly 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of buying and selling the chemicals including the trichloroethylene manufactured by M/s. Dhranghadhara Chemical Works, Bombay. For the years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessing officer levied tax on the turnover of the petitioner in respect of sale of trichloroethylene at the rate prescribed under section 5(1) of the 'Act' treating that chemical as a solvent falling under 'other chemicals' and not as a 'heavy chemical' falling under item No.79 of the Second Schedule. Item No. 79, as it then stood reads : 'Heavy chemicals (such as sulphuric acid, dydrochloric Eight per cent.' acid, caustic soda, etc.)' Item No. 79 prescribes a higher rate of tax on the sale of 'heavy chemicals' - the ...
G. Rajendra Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant118; 1985(1)KarLJ149
ORDER1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dt. 9-12-1983 passed by the first respondent in No. SB.COM.SR.45/83 under S. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), confiscating the seized 45 barrels of groundnut oil and further directing the same to be sold in public auction and the sale proceeds to be credited to the Government.2. The petitioner has made certain allegations against the first respondent and some officials in the office of the first respondent. Learned Government pleader Sri Udayashankar submits that he may be granted time to file the statement of objections having regard to the allegations made by the petitioner. It appears to me that it is not necessary to go into those allegations having regard to the fact that this writ petition can be disposed of on a short ground.3. It is not in dispute that there is an order passed under S. 6A of the Act, confiscating 45 barr...
K.S. Muthukali Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Karnataka, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Kar)215; ILR1985KAR672; [1984]150ITR359(KAR); [1984]150ITR359(Karn)
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The question referred in these references under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, relates to the extent of the interest of the assessee in the converted property for the purpose of inclusion in the net wealth in his wealth-tax return. 2. Since the question raised is common for all the assessment years, viz., 1971-72 to 1974-75, the same will be disposed by this common order. 3. The assessee was assessed to wealth-tax on the value of his movable and immovables. On March 15, 1971, certain immovable properties owned by the assessee, as separate properties, were thrown into the family hotchpot by means of a declaration Those properties consisted of buildings, factory, vacant sites and certain agricultural lands. The Hindu undivided family ('HUF') of which the assessee was the manager comprised of his wife and two minor sons. 4. It was contended before the WTO that the value of the properties thrown into the common stock of the joint family should not be assessed in t...
State of Karnataka Vs. Kempaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Kant208; 1984(1)KarLJ521
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. This is an appeal by the appellants who were the respondents and is directed against the order dt. 2-11-1979 of out learned brother Venkatachala, J., allowing Writ Petition No. 65N of 1975: (since reported in (1980) 1 Kant LJ 362), filed by the respondents who were the petitioners.2. Land hearing Sy. No. 169/1 of Ramanagaram village/town measuring 1 acre 20 guntas originally stood in the name of one Sidda son of Channamma in the record of rights (hereinafter referred to as the RTC) maintained by the Revenue Department of Government. Sidda is stated to have died some time in 1967 and on his death respondent-l petitioner who is one of his sons has been recognised as the owner of the said land in the RTC' in the place of Sidda. In an authenticated extract of' the RTC furnished by the Tahsildar, Ramanagaram, the relevant entry of the same reads thus:-'1. Survey number, Sircar of Inam and local name of the Field if any 169 2. Sub-Division Number 1 3. Description of Lan...
N. Seenappa Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1984
Reported in: (1987)60CTR(Kar)94; [1987]163ITR253(KAR); [1987]163ITR253(Karn); [1986]26TAXMAN445(Kar)
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following questions have been referred : '(i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case, whether there is material on record for the Tribunal to hold that there was understatement of consideration and (ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is attracted to the assessee's case ?' 2. The facts are these : The assessee was a contractor. In 1967, he was allotted site No. 328, Palace Upper Orchards, Bangalore, by the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, for Rs. 19,274. In 1968, he started construction of a building and when it was nearing completion, he sold it to Mr. and Mrs. Mehta, for Rs. 2,51,101. The purchasers then spent about Rs. 52,720, on improvement and finishing touch up. 3. The assessee did not offer any capital gains for tax. 4. Before the ...
The State of Karnataka Vs. Balappa Bhau Vadagave and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR21; 1984(2)KarLJ1
Kudoor, J.1. These two criminal appeals by the State arise out of the judgment and order dated 30th November 1981 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in S. C. No. 28/1981. Cr. A. No. 281/1982 is one under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of all the five accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447 and Section 302 read with Section 149 I. P. C. and also the acquittal of A2 to A5 of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 I. P. C. Cr.A. No. 282/1982 is one under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the sentence awarded against A1 to A3 for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 304 Part II read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. All the five accused were charged for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. on the ground that all of them on 24-12-1980 at about 3 p.m. constituted themselves into an unlawful assembly armed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »