Karnataka Court December 1989 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 Vs. Subhan Sab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR364
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The respondents in these appeals are dealers registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and engaged in the manufacture of beaten rice and parched rice. They were enjoying the benefit of exemption upto 1981 as provided under 25-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as covered by Entry 28 of V Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. When they again applied for grant of recognition certificates, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued notices proposing to refuse grant of recognition certificate. Some of the respondents filed their objections to the said notice issued to them. They explained the process of making beaten rice as follows:-That the paddy is cleaned and then soaked in water. Afterwards the soaked paddy is friend in Cast. Iron pans and this fried paddy is pressed into beaten rice in 'poha' machines run by electric power. They have stated that the intention of the said provision was to give benefit not only f...
Shailaja Uppund Vs. Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: 1990(3)KarLJ506
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a residential building having purchased the same in the year 1984. After the purchase, the petitioner effected certain improvements to the building. A Special Notice under Section 147 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (the Act) was issued to the petitioner as per Annexure-A dated 16-5-1986 stating that the rental value has been revised from Rs. 1000/- to Rs.11, 450/- with effect form 1-4-1986. To the said notice objections were also called for in writing to be filed before the Commissioner of the Corporation. Objections were accordingly filed by the petitioner on 25-6-1-986. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 16-7-1986 by the Deputy Revenue Office (North) stating that the objection filed by the petitioner to the proposed enhancement of rental, would be heard by the Deputy Revenue Officer on 23-7-1986 and called upon the petitioner to be present at the hearing. To this, the petitioner filed objection as per Annexure-D...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Abdul Majeed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC455; 1991ACJ453; ILR1990KAR1493
Rama Jois, J.1. These ten appeals are presented by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation against the common Judgment and separate awards made on ten claim petitions presented under Section 110-A of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandya.2. Brief facts of the case are these: On 23-2-1981 at about 5-30 P.M. Tourist bus belonging to Sonar Roadways, Cannanore was coming from Cannanore, to Bangalore and was plying near Channegowdanadoddi near Maddur, on Bangalore Mysore Road. A bus belonging to the appellant Corporation was proceeding towards Mysore from Bangalore. Accident occurred at about 5-30 P.M. near Channegowdanadoddi when there was head on collision between the red colour bus belonging to the Corporation and the green colour bus belonging to Sonar Roadways (hereinafter referred to as 'the Red Bus' and 'the Green Bus' respectively for convenience). There were as many 'as 12 claim petitions presented by individuals either by the inj...
State Vs. Embichi Ahmed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC582
Hiremath, J.1. The Charge against the accused-respondent before the Court of the J.M.F.C. at Maddur was that on 18-6-1981, at about 7.45 p.m., he being the driver of lorry No. KLZ 8134, drove in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a passenger bus as a result of which injuries were sustained, both simple and grievous, to as many as 12 passengers and a lady by name Shanthamma, who was also travelling in the same bus bearing No. MDS 9313, died on account of injuries sustained by her. The charges against him were under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court on 23-2-1982 after the accused appeared in the court. Trial could not commence immediately and the plea was actually recorded on 1-3-1985. The accused pleaded guilty and accepting the plea of guilt he was convicted for the offences and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 250/- on each court with default sentence. The total amount of fine thus imposed came to Rs. 1,000/-....
Andanesh Dandappa Manvi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1806
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are proprietors of Ginning and Pressing Factories in the State of Karnataka, have sought for a declaration that Section 2B(2) of the Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factories Act, 1925, as substituted by the Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factories (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Karnataka Act), is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They have also sought for quashing the Notification dated 13-3-1987 bearing No. AHD 471 AMS 86 (Annexure-E) published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 16th March 1987. They have further sought for a direction to the respondent to fix the rates in accordance with Rule 8 of the Karnataka Cotton Ginning and Pressing (Rate Fixing Committee) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).2. Writ Petitions Nos. 5216 to 5218, 13321, 13332 of 1987 and W.P.No. 3516 of 1988 relate to the fixation of rates for ...
P.N. Narasimha Murthy Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1710; 1990(1)KarLJ143
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. Petitioner is a resident of Tumkur and the owner of Bhagyalakshmi Motor Service. He claims that he is interested in ensuring that the first respondent-Regional Transport Officer satisfies himself as to the merits of the second-respondent the applicant for starting a driving school under the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, he has approached this Court for a direction that the first respondent may be restrained from granting the said driving school licence to the second respondent inter alia on the ground that he has placed sufficient material before the first respondent which would disentitle the second respondent from getting the necessary licence to start a driving school.2. The Licensing and Regulation of schools or establishments for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles is controlled by Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides for the Licensing Authority to have regar...
income-tax Officer and anr. Vs. K.L. Srihari (Huf),
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1989
Reported in: [1992]197ITR694(KAR); [1992]197ITR694(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The respondent in each of these cases is a Hindu undivided family and was assessed to tax by the first appellant by way of regular assessment including levy of interest under sections 139(8) and 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against which appeals were filed. When the said appeals were pending, the assessments came to be reopened by issue of a notice under section 148 and reassessments we also made subsequently. While completing the reassessment, the Income-tax Officer levied interest under section 139(8) and interest under section 215 of the Act. Again, each of these orders was the subject-matter of appeals before the second of appellant against levy of interest under section 139(8) and section 215 of the Act was challenged in that appeal. The second appellant held that the appeal against such levy is not maintainable at all on the facts and circumstances of the case and refused to interfere with the said levy. Against that order, the respondent filed a writ p...
G.L. Jagadish and Etc. Vs. Shamantha Kumari and ors. Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1175; I(1990)DMC552; ILR1990KAR967; 1990(3)KarLJ531
ORDER1. In these two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the ex parte orders of interim maintenance passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. The petitioners have not yet filed their objections and sought for re-consideration of the ex parte orders of interim maintenance granted in the petitions for maintenance filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that neither Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') contains any provision enabling the Court to pass an ex parte order of interim maintenance nor there is any other provision in the Cr.P.C, to reconsider the order of maintenance once passed whether interim or final; that the jurisdiction exercised by the Family Court is the one exercisable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.; therefore, the restrictions and the limitation...
Mirza Habib Aga Vs. Karnataka Board of Wakfs and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant299; ILR1990KAR1702; 1990(1)KarLJ109
ORDER1. Petitioner is one Mirza Habib Aga, who admittedly is the son of 2nd respondent Mrs. Malak Sultana. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order as at Annexure-J passed by the first respondent Karnataka Wakf Board. The order is dated 24-4:1989. He has therefore prayed in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order at Annexure-J as well as an earlier order at Annexure-G.2. At this stage itself I may mention the prayers are in contradiction with each other. If Annexure-G is quashed, then there was no need for the proceedings resulting in Annexure-J. This fact should be borne in mind while disposing of the case of the petitioner.3. The facts may be stated briefly and which are not in dispute are as follows :--By an application dated 12-12-1980 the 2nd respondent Mrs. Malak Sultana moved the first respondent Wakf Board to treat property bearing No. 5 (Old No. 1), Kingston Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore, as wakf property belonging to A...
State of Karnataka Vs. Mohammed Jaffer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ777; ILR1990KAR597; 1990(3)KarLJ504
Hiremath, J.1. Heard. 2. The accused has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- with default sentence. The conviction is for the offences u/Ss. 279, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. As far as the prayer for enhancement is concerned we do not find any grounds for enhancement. But the trial Court, we have to observe, ought to have passed separate sentence for each of the offences for which he was found guilty and it is stated that there were 2 other injured persons in respect of whom distinct offences u/S. 337 and 338 were alleged. 3. It has come to our notice that in many cases the trial Courts do not bear in mind that for each of the offences separate sentence has to be passed and this is one such instance. In spite of this infirmity as the accused will have served the sentence by the time this appeal comes to be disposed of no useful purpose would be served by technically apportioning the sentence. The trial Courts, however, shall understa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »