Karnataka Court November 1988 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.
K. Raghavendra Rao Vs. K. Srinivasa Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant334
ORDER1. This matter arises out of the order dt. 12-1-1988 made on I.A.1 in F.D.P. 16 of 1986 (in O. S. 119 of 1983) on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Managalore. I. A. 1 was filed by respondent in the lower Court inter area seeking an order that the property in question may be sold to the plaintiff after determining its value. The Court, instead of granting relief as prayed for by the Revision Petitioner in his application I.A.1, proceeded to direct sale by public auction by appointing a Commissioner and it further granted permission to petitioner-plaintiff (though the order reads 'respondent-1' which apparently is an error) to bid at the auction. Therefore, the present revision is preferred inter area contending that there is no proper disposal of I. A. 1 and the Court has acted contrary to the provisions of Ss. 2 and 3 of the Partition Act.2. The facts themselves are not in dispute, except, Mr. Janardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the respondents has strenu...
Rasal Bai Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2299
ORDERBopanna, J 1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since certain common questions arise for consideration in all these petitions.2. I.As.I and II are allowed.3. The petitioners are the owners of certain portions of the lands in Survey Nos. 81/1, 82/2 and 84/3 of Kacharakanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The preliminary notification was made in the year 1977 and the final notification was made in the year 1980. The lands were sought to be acquired for the Bangalore Development Authority (in short the BDA) for the purpose of developing a layout known as 'Banaswadi Road Hennur Road Layout'. A large extent of land approximately 1,200 acres had been acquired under the aforesaid notifications and a number of petitions by the owners of the lands who were aggrieved by the said preliminary and the final notifications had come before this Court and their Writ Petitions were dismissed by a series of Judgments to which a brief reference has to be made. It is on recor...
K. Karunakar Shetty Vs. Syndicate Bank, Manipal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Kant1; 1989(1)KarLJ276
ORDER1. Revision petitioner is the judgment-debtor in the court below. He is aggrieved by the order df. 30th Nov. 1987 passed in Ex. Case No. 79 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Munsiff at Udupi, D. K. The order directs arrest and detention in Civil Prison for three months in accordance with the provisions contained in Ss. 51 and 58 of the C.P.C. and also directs the decree-holder to deposit the subsistence allowance of Rs. 200/- tentatively.2. That the petitioner has suffered a decree is not in dispute. His defence was that he has no means to pay the decretal amount and therefore the decree cannot be executed by his arrest and detention in civil prison.3. It appears that an enquiry was conducted by the Court below. The decree-holder has examined two witnesses. The two witnesses have failed to establish by any cogent evidence that the petitioner had means to pay the decretal amount with accrued interest ason the date of the order. Both have spoken tocertain activities of the judgme...
M. Somashekar and ors. Vs. S.A. Subbaraju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR738; 1989(3)KarLJ195
ORDER1. Petitioners 1 and 2 were Accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and respondent was the complainant in C.C. No. 119 of 1983 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chickmagalur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court or the trial Magistrate' as the case may be). For the sake of convenience, reference will hereinafter be made to the parties in this revision petition with reference to the positions they occupied in the trial Court viz., complainant and accused. 2. Both the accused are convicted by the trial Magistrate for an offence under section 500 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to suffer imprisonment for a further period of two months. Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1985 filed by the accused in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20-11-1985 passed against them by the trial Court is dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge ...
S. Venkataramaiah Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)KarLJ197
ORDER1. The short point that falls for determination in this Revision Petition is : Whether the utterance of the words matter in Vernacular omitted. by the petitioner to one S. Jayarama Rao (PW 3), within the meeting hall of the Land Tribunal, Pandavapura, in the course of the proceedings of the Land Tribunal amounts to the offence of public nuisance punishable under S. 290 I.P.C. 2. It has arisen in this way : Petitioner is the younger brother of PW 3 S. Jayarama Rao. It appears there was a case between them before the Land Tribunal, Pandavapura. It had been posted for hearing on 15-11-1984. In the said case, petitioner was being cross examined by PW 3. Being irritated and upset by certain questions put by PW 3 to the petitioner, petitioner appears to have uttered the words matter in Vernacular omitted. and those words were obviously directed to PW 3 and not to anybody else and while uttering those words, the petitioner appears to have misbehaved. In respect of that incident, a petty ...
H. Anjanappa Vs. Chancellor, Bangalore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR277; 1988(3)KarLJ80
ORDERPrem Chand Jain, C.J.1. The petitioner, who is a Scheduled Caste, is working as Superintendent in the University of Bangalore. Similarly Respondents-2 and 4 are also employees in the University. A vacancy of the Assistant Registrar, which is reserved for Scheduled Tribes, occurred, to which Respondent-2, who belongs to a general category, has been promoted. Against another vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste, the 4th Respondent has been promoted. The petitioner claims that under Statute No. 25.2 of the Bangalore University Statutes, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Statutes') read with the Entry in the Schedule relating to the Assistant Registrars, it is only the graduates with academic record and administrative experience of not less than five years in Government Institution or in a University, alone are entitled for promotion by selection from the cadre of Superintendents. According to the averments made in the petition, Respondents-2 and 4 do not possess the qualification of g...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Felix Correa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR441; 1989(1)KarLJ490
Hiremath, J.1. The claimants in MVC. No. 360/81 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Mangalore (Dakshina Kannada) had claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-on account of the death of B. Thimmappashetty who died on 7-8-1981 at about 5 p.m. when he was driving the Scooter bearing No. MXJ 7585. At that time another motor cycle bearing No. MYG 9166 of the first respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, came from the opposite side and hit the scooter on which the deceased was going. He sustained fatal injuries and was removed to K.M.C. Hospital at Manipal immediately. In spite of the treatment given to him he succumbed to the injuries on 4-9-1981. He was a clerk in the Syndicate Bank at Manipal and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,212-97ps per month. In course of time he could have drawn monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-2. The first respondent owner of the said motor cycle bearing MYG 9166 was himself driving his vehicle when this accident occurred. Whil...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Folix Correa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-23-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC465
N. Venkatachala, J.1. The claimants in MVC No. 360/81 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Mangalore (Dakshina Kannada) had claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of the death of B. Thim-mappashetty who died on 7-8-1981 at about 5 p.m. when he was driving the Scooter bearing No. MXJ 7585. At that time another motor cycle bearing No. MYG 9166 of the First respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, came from the opposite side and hit the scooter on which the deceased was going. He sustained fatal injuries and was removed to K.M.C, Hospital at Manipal immediately. In spite of the treatment given to him he succumbed to the injuries on 4-9-1981. He was a clerk in the Syndicate Bank at Manipal and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,212-97 ps. per month. In course of time he could have drawn monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/-.2. The first respondent owner of the said motor cycle bearing MYG 9166 was himself driving his vehicle when this accident occ...
Canara Sales Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)79CTR(Kar)64; ILR1989KAR3387; [1989]176ITR340(KAR); [1989]176ITR340(Karn); 1988(3)KarLJ348
Rajendra Babu, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on the business of purchase and sale of petrol and allied items and motor accessories, etc. For the assessment years 1957-58 to 1960-61, it was assessed on different incomes by separate orders. Later on, it was found that an employee of the assessee had embezzled certain amounts by using forged cheques. The purchase account had been inflated to the extent of the embezzled amounts, for each of the accounting years ending 31st March relevant to each of the assessment years. The total sum misappropriated was Rs. 48,346, Rs. 75,030, Rs. 74,366 and Rs. 60,413 respectively. On this information, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessments. The assessee filed returns showing the income originally assessed, accompanied by a covering letter dated March 25, 1966, in which it challenges the proceedings initiated under sections 147(a) and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The said returns were filed under...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Industrial Credit and Development Syndi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1988
Reported in: [1989]177ITR51(KAR); [1989]177ITR51(Karn); 1989(1)KarLJ259
Rajendra Babu, J.1. The matter under reference arises under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. 2. The Syndicate Bank came to be amalgamated with the assessee-company. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,68,20,000 should be treated as a reserve for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act. The Income-tax Officer held that the said sum was not a reserve as this amount represented the surplus 'received as compensation' when the company's business was taken over on the nationalization of the bank and rejected the contention. He also stated that in working out the capital, he took note of the reduction in capital and in spite of the objection from the assessee, overruled the same. 3. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the company itself had not treated this amount as a reserve and it represented an existing liability which is liable to be distributed among the shareholders, He also held that it was not a reserve wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »