Karnataka Court December 1987 Judgments
K.T. Mohammed Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1129; 1987(3)KarLJ407
Desai, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the Judgment dated 21-6-1985 of the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Sessions Case No. 37/83 on his file. They arise in this way:K.T. Mohammed, aged about 25 years, and T.S. Chandrashekhar, aged about 24 years, both residents of Sagar Town, were accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the said case. They were tried for offences punishable under Sections 120B IPC, 302 read with 34 IPC (on four counts) and Section 392 IPC. The first charge against them was that on 27-8-83 at Mangaiore they agreed to do an illegal Act, to wit, to rob and murder deceased A.S. Lokesh who was working as Salesman of Rythabandhu Gramodyoga, Anandapura and in pursuance of the said conspiracy the said offences of robbery and murder of A.S. Lokesh were committed on the road between Thirthahalli and Arga Village and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. They were also charged for committing the murders of Lokesh, Manjunath, Vishwanatha Rai and Shivappa ...
Tag this Judgment!Sathyanarayana Kamath Vs. Revannappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1817
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a petition by the complainant against the order dated 14-3-86 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in S.C.21/84 refusing to interfere with the order dated 26-3-84 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimoga in C.C.57/82. On a private complaint filed by the petitioner on 24-4-82, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as can be seen from the order sheet dated 27-4-82, recorded the sworn statements of the complainant and his one witness and ordered the registration of the case and issued process against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 395, 354 and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. That order issuing process was challenged by the accused persons in criminal revision petition No. 343/82. This Court set aside the said order issuing the process on the ground that the Court without taking cognizance initially had proceeded to record the sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses, and sent back the case to the Court of C.J.M., Shimoga fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sampkh and Mandal Panchayat Vs. Kusumakara Vishnu Kodiya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2378; 1988(2)KarLJ174
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Though, this Civil Revision Petition is posted for orders, it is taken up for final hearing, having regard to the fact that the trial Court has passed the order under Revision without there being any cause instituted before it.2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 5-11-1987, passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Sirsi in Civil Misc. Case No. 23/1987, granting an order of temporary injunction against the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3, restraining them from entering and forming a road in S.No. 9A measuring 3 acres 23 guntas of Devinmane Village, Sirsi Taluk, in an application filed under Section 151 of the C.P. Code.3. There is no original suit filed by the 1st respondent seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the aforesaid land bearing Sy.No. 9A of Devinmane and forming a road therein or for any other relief.4. The ...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Bannad and Sons and anr. Vs. State Bank of India, Gadag and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Kant28; ILR1988KAR855; 1988(1)KarLJ64
K.A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of admission the respondents are notified. Accordingly the first respondent-plaintiff has put in appearance through a counsel. As far as the second respondent is concerned he was defendant No. 3 in the suit and he sails with the appellants. There is a decree passed against him also but he has neither filed any appeal nor joined the appellants. Therefore notice to him is dispensed with.2. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and finally disposed of by this judgment.3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dt. 22-8-1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gadag in O.S. No. 33 of 1986. The appeal is confined to grant of installments only. The trial Court has passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 74,885-50 with costs and with current interest at the rate of Rs. 13%, p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Thus the interest at the rate of Rs. 13% is awarded in respect of the current as well as the future.4. Heard...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bellary Vs. India Sugars a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR694; [1988]69STC113(Kar)
P.A. Kulkarni, J. 1. These petitions arise out of the common order dated 8th May, 1986, passed by the Addl. J.M.F.C., Hospet in M.C. Nos. 16, 12, 5 and 13 of 1982 filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bellary, for recovery of the purchase tax for the different periods ranging from 1976 to January, 1982 under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. According to Mr. Rangaraju, the Salar Jung Sugar Mills, Munirabad was formerly a unit and branch of the respondent-India Sugars and Refineries Ltd., and as per the agreement dated 13th April, 1982, the Salar Jung unit had been transferred by the India Sugars and Refineries Ltd. as a separate unit and that hence the Salar Jung Sugar Mills alone is liable to pay the arrears of tax. He referred me to the date of agreement referred to in the order of the court below. The agreement is dated 13th April, 1982. The application for recovery in M.C. No. 16 of 1982 is filed on 6th March, 1982. The application for rec...
Tag this Judgment!Binny Limited Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (int.)-lr., South Z ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR278; [1988]68STC366(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The petitioner, a public limited company and a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('the Act'), has challenged the order of seizure made by the respondent under section 28(3) of the Act. 2. The respondent, an officer of the Commercial Tax Department attached to its Intelligence Wing at Bangalore, as stated in the order which is impugned in this writ petition, on information that the petitioner was effecting 'stock transfers' of goods, namely, silk fabrics to its various show-rooms outside the State of Karnataka, and was thus avoiding payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act (C.S.T. Act), visited the office-cum-mill premises of the petitioner at Bangalore on 13th March 1987. 3. After entering the premises of the petitioner, the respondent called upon the Financial Accountant of M/s. Binny Mills Ltd., the petitioner-company, to make available the relevant books of account and other records relating to transactions described in the...
Tag this Judgment!D.R. Shivappa Gowda Vs. Zilla Parishad, Chief Secretary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR509
ORDERBopanna, J.1. These batch of Writ Petitions raise an important question of law touching the interpretation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Anti-Defection Act). The Karnataka Legislature just on the eve of the elections to the Zilla Parishads and Mandal Panchayats which came to be constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, issued an Ordinance called as 'Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Ordinance, 1986'. The Ordinance was promulgated on 29th December, 1986. By that Ordinance certain disqualifications were imposed on a Councillor or member belonging to any political party from voting or abstaining from voting in any meeting of the Zilla Parishad and Mandal Panchayat, contrary to any direction issued by the political party to whic...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools (No. 2)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: [1989]175ITR216(KAR); [1989]175ITR216(Karn); [1989]43TAXMAN153(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deciding that the revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with its new divisions is deductible as business expenditure of the assessee (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the technical assistance fees paid by the assessee in connection with the setting up of the six new divisions is deductible ?' 2. As far as the first question is concerned, the matter is covered by the order of this court made in the case of same assessee in ITRC No. 294 of 1979, decided on January 7, 1986 - [1989] 175 ITR 212 (supra). Following the said decision, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour ...
Tag this Judgment!Veerarajendra Estate Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR6(KAR); [1988]173ITR6(Karn)
S. R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The orders passed by the respondent, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Virajpet, under section 37 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78, are challenged in these writ petitions. 2. The assessments for the two years were completed on June 20, 1978. On June 27, 1980, notices under section 37 of the Act were issued by the respondent proposing to rectify the two assessment orders for the reasons stated in the notices, annexures 'C' and 'D'. To these notices, the petitioner-assesses replied as per annexures 'E' and 'F'. The respondent, not agreeing with the replies, proceeded to rectify the assessment orders as per his orders, annexures 'G' and 'H'. 3. Notices issued under section 37 of the Act indicate three mistakes relating to the assessment year 1976-77 and four mistakes relating to the assessment year 1977-78. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners concedes...
Tag this Judgment!Sonakka Gopalagowda Shanthaveri and ors. Vs. U.R. Anantha Murthy and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-02-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant255
1. This appeal is directed against the interlocutory order made by the learned Civil Judge in O.S. No. 4029 of 1987 dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs (who are appellants herein and who are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) under the provisions of 0. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 of C.P.C. (in short the Code).2. Interim reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs in the suit were to restrain defendants-1, 2 and 3 from re-publishing the Kannada novel written by defendant-1 under the title 'Avasthe' and to restrain defendants4 to 8 from exhibiting and screening the picture based on the aforesaid novel going by the name 'Avasthe'. It is common ground that the book was published earlier in the year 1978 and it has reached the stage of second reprint obviously because the book must have been in good demand by the lovers of Kannada -Literature in this State. Defendant-1 who has written the book is a well-known litterateur and he has got to his credit some other works in Kannada language. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »