Karnataka Court June 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.
L. Shivanna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2121; 1989(1)KarLJ294
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In the first Writ Petition presented by a Member of the Zilla Parishad, Chickmagalur, the following important question of law arises for consideration;Whether a person who is not an elected member of the Zilla Parishad in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, but who being a member of the State Legislative Assembly or State Legislative Council or a Member of Parliament or a President of District Central Cooperative Bank, is given the right to participate in the proceedings/meetings of a Zilla Parishad under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 139, can be regarded as a member of the Local Authority for the purpose of Article 171(3)(a) of the Constitution of India, entitled to vote in the concerned Local Authorities Constituency, in the election to the Karnataka State Legislative Council?In the second Writ Petition presented by the General...
State of Karnatka Vs. A. Joseph
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)ACC6
R.G. Desai, J.1. The respondent was the accused in C.C. No. 2297/83 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, II Court, Bangalore. He was tried for offences punishable Under Section 279 and 304-A IPC on the allegation that on 23-5-1983 at about 12 noon he drove drilling rig bearing No. MEW 5039 out of the compound of Vasavi Dharmashala from south to north and in that course, the hind portion of the mast of the rig dashed against the western compound wall of house No. 27 and due to that the wall collapsed and fell on Jayantilal and Sandeep, aged about 10 years and 4 years respectively who were playing by the side of that compound wall and due to that both the boys died.2. In fact, the records show that the accused pleaded guilty when the said accusation was put to him. But, the learned Magistrate has noted in the order-sheet dated 26-6-84 that the accused pleaded not guilty. On that basis, the prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence. PWs 1 to 13 were examined and Exs. P 1 to P ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Kar)54; [1988]174ITR475(KAR); [1988]174ITR475(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), made at the instance of the Department for our opinion on the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 9,431 paid by the assessee to the Co-operative Education Fund was allowable as a deduction in computing the assessable income.' 2. The assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Societies Act'). For the relevant assessment year, the assessee claimed deduction of an amount of Rs. 9,431 being the contribution to the education fund which was made as required under section 57(4)(a) of the Societies Act. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the same. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal confirmed the...
State of Karnataka Vs. Mohd. Ismail
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)KarLJ141
R.G. Desai, J.1. The respondent was the accused in C.C. No. 423/3/83 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Chincholi. He was tried for the offence punishable under S. 304A, I.P.C. on the allegation that, on 24-7-1983 are about 4.30 p.m., he was riding motorcycle No. APB 1497 on Chincholi-Chandapur road in front of the junior college at Chandapur in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against one Narayanrao, aged about 85 years, and caused his death. 2. As the accused denied the commission of the offence, P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and Exhs. P-1 to 4 and M.Os. 1 to 9 were produced on behalf of the prosecution. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. Appreciating the evidence, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt to the accused for the offence punishable under S. 304A, I.P.C. and acquitted him. Hence, this appeal by the State after obtaining leave. 3. According to the prosecution, when deceased Narayanarao was returning home after visi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.D. Veeranarasimhaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Kar)234; [1988]174ITR435(KAR); [1988]174ITR435(Karn); 1988(2)KarLJ301; [1988]41TAXMAN1(Kar)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has referred at the instance of the Department, the following question under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the provisions of section 64(1)(vii) do not apply in the present case ?' 2. The assessee in this reference is an individual. D. L. Narasimhaiah Family Trust and M. D. Veeranarasimhaiah Family Trust are partners in the registered firms of Jaya & Co. and D. L. Narasimhaiah & Bros. D. L. Narasimhaiah is the other partner in the firm, D. L. Narasimhaiah & Bros. while M. D. Veeranarasimhaiah is the other partner in the firm, Jaya & Co. In the D. L. Narasimhaiah Family Trust, the beneficiaries are the five minor children of the said Narasimhaiah represented by their mother, trustee, in the firm of Jay...
Umakanta Rao Vs. Lalitabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2067; 1988(2)KarLJ155
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal by defendant-1 is referred against the Judgment anddecree dated 9-9-1976 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Raichur inO.S.No. 34/1974.2. Respondents 1 and 2 are plaintiffs 1 and 2. Respondent-3 wasdefendant-2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant-1 are the children ofdefendant-2. Defendant-2 died during the pendency of the appeal. Hername came to be deleted on the basis of the memo dated 23-11-1981filed by the appellant stating that her heirs are already on record.(Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant-1 are her heirs). Respondent-4 wasdefendant-3 in the suit. He died after the Judgment of the trial Courtand before the appeal was filed. Respondents 4(a) to 4(c) who are thesons of deceased respondent-4 are brought on record as L.Rs. ofdeceased respondent-4, by the order dated 28-2-1977.3. In this appeal, the parties will be referred to with referenceto the position assigned to them in the trial Court.4. The trial Court has passed a decree in favour of plaintiffs 1and...
G. Venkataramanappa Vs. C. Kotappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2037; 1988(2)KarLJ136
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. When the matter was taken up for hearing on the 8th instant thelearned Counsel for the 1st respondent was absent and we heard Sri K.Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellants and reserved theJudgment. After a while, on the same day, the learned Counsel for thefirst respondent appeared and requested for being heard. Hence, thecase was taken up for hearing again on the 9th instant when both thelearned Counsel were present. We heard the learned Counsel for the 1strespondent in detail and the matter was again reserved forJudgment.2. Appellants, claiming to be the workmen under the firstrespondent (referred as the employer), filed an application underSection 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'theI.D. Act') for enforcement of their claim for minimum bonus under theprovisions of the Payment of Bonus Act (for short 'the Act'). Theapplication was opposed by the employer, on the ground that, therelationship of employer and employee ceased in M...
Sulochana S. Shetty Vs. Chief Executive Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1998; 1988(2)KarLJ179
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. This Appeal is by the widow and children of Dr. SadashivaShetty, who was the petitioner in W.P.No. 592/ 1979.2. The petitioner was serving as a Medical Officer in L.P.Dispensary, Wandse, Coondapur Taluk. By an order dated 18-5-1977,penalty of removing him from service was imposed on him. This orderwas affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 28-12-1978. Consequently,the services of the petitioner were terminated. These orders werechallenged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition.3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, petitioner died on21-9-1983. The present appellants, thereafter filed variousapplications to come on record as the legal representatives of thedeceased petitioner, for condonation of delay in filing theapplication and for setting aside the abatement. The relevant papersare not placed before us, and we are not able to make out the dates ofthese applications and the delay involved.4. The learned single Judge rejected these applications, by holding...
Dr. H.S. Appaji Vs. Bangalore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2385; 1988(3)KarLJ200
ORDERBopanna, J.1. These three Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order since the subject matter of dispute between the parties is common in all the Writ Petitions and a common point arises for consideration in these petitions.2. The facts in these Writ Petitions unfold a sequence of extraordinary events which resulted in cancellation of the examinations held and proposed to be held in the practicals and orals of the M.D. and D.C.P. examinations of February/March, 1988 in Bangalore Medical College. The facts are not in very serious controversy. But the controversy which was highlighted in the course of the arguments appears to revolve round the power of the Registrar (Evaluation) who is also the Controller of Examinations to cancel the examinations in question and the power of the Chairman of the Board of Examiners to conduct the aforesaid oral and practical examinations notwithstanding the order of cancellation served on him by the Registrar. But the more important question in...
G.E. Thippaiah Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1988
Reported in: [1991]187ITR668(KAR); [1991]187ITR668(Karn)
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. This matter has come up before us on a reference by the learned single judge. 2. The petitioner has sought for quashing the notice dated June 25, 1981, issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer (respondent) treating the petitioner as the legal representative of the Hindu undivided family and directing him to file a return of income of the Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1980-81. 3. Brief fact which are necessary to appreciate the question raised in this petition are as follows :- 4. The petitioner is one of the sons of the late G. B. Eregowda who died on December 15, 1975. Before his death, Eregowda and his wife, Channamma constituted a Hindu undivided family. The deceased left behind him three legal heirs including his wife and the petitioner. In the year 1970, a partition was effected among G. B. Eregowda and his sons by which the three coparceners got themselves divided in status. Thereafter, Eregowda and his sons by which the three coparceners g...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »