Karnataka Court February 1990 Judgments
Sudhakar Vs. Lakshamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2269; 1991(1)KarLJ90
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant against an order of eviction made under Section 29(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The landlord has filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Act. During the pendency of the proceedings the landlord also filed an application under Section 29 of the Act since the tenant was in arrears. On 30-3-1987 the Court made an order under Section 29 of the Act determining the rate of rent and the arrears payable by the tenant as Rs. 39,200/- as on the said date. The tenant was given a month's time and accordingly he deposited the same within the time given by the Court. In fact, there was 6 days delay there also. The rate of rent determined by the Court was Rs. 1,400/- per month. The tenant, thereafter did not deposit the rent till 15-9-1987 on which date he deposited a sum of Rs. 7,600/- being 5 months rent. Subsequently, t...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Muni Rama Vs. Jayalakshmi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC630
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This Petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is directed against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore dated 2nd day of January, 1990 on I.A. II in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 31/1989 on its file.2 The said application came to be filed by the applicant before the Family Court in Proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking interim maintenance pending disposal of their Petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They alleged that the respondent who is the petitioner in this Court is having an income of Rs. 3500/- and he has also rental income of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem and therefore, each of them should be awarded interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 500/-. Respondent resisted the same by averring that his income is not what the applicants claim and that he gets only Rs. 2325/- per mensem and he has to maintain his family and as such application must be dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Binny Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1990
Reported in: 1990LC341(Karnataka); 1990(50)ELT23(Kar); ILR1990KAR1297
1. In this writ appeal, presented by Union of India, by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, III Division, Bangalore, the following two questions of law arise for consideration : 1. Whether the assistant Collector of Central Excise has the authority or duty to consider a claim for refund of any excess amount paid by way of excise duty by mistake of law which falls outside the purview of Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 2. Whether a person can claim refund of any excess amount paid as excise duty by mistake of law, from Union of India, even though such claim for refund does not fall within the scope of Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these : During the period commencing from 1st September 1975 and ending on 30th September, 1983, the respondent - Binny Limited, paid excise duty on textile goods manufactured by it assessing the value of the manufactured goods ...
Tag this Judgment!Chenna Reddy Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1757; 1990(2)KarLJ16
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. This matter had been taken up for final hearing by consent of the learned Counsel on both sides on 22-2-1990. The matter was heard in part and again it was called on 26-2-1990. On that date the matter was heard further and was reserved for pronouncement of orders today. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner now submitted that he has some more submissions to make in the matter. He was accordingly permitted to do so and the matter was heard further.2. The petitioner contested the election to the Mandal Panchayat of Thoppanahally from Chamanahally constituency and was elected as a member of the said Mandal Panchayat. The petitioner is working as an Accountant in Bharath Earth Movers Limited (BEML), Kotar Gold Fields. After his election to the Mandal Panchayat the petitioner did not resign from the post of Accountant in BEML, but continued to be a member of the Mandal Panchayat and also as an Accountant, in BEML. The second respondent in the Writ Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Puroshattam Vs. Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Karwar and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC280(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By an assessment order dated 20th May, 1989, he was assessed to pay tax at Rs. 7,303 on a turnover of sale of gold ornaments in the sum of Rs. 3,65,166.70. The assessment in question was from 1st April, 1987 to 31st March, 1988, i.e., the assessment year 1987-88. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharwad Division, Dharwad, respondent 2, under section 21(4) of the Act. The power exercised to issue is a suo motu power of revision conferred on the superior officers to call for and examine the records, if any officer below their rank has committed any error which has resulted in loss of revenue to the State. The assessment order is found fault with on account of the fact that a sum of Rs. 1,60,334.60 paid for ornaments purchased from the unregistered dealers has not been includ...
Tag this Judgment!Maruthi and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1990Kant356; ILR1990KAR1378; 1990(3)KarLJ614
1. Writ Appeal No.314/ 1990 is preferred against the order dt. 6-2-1990 passed in W.P. No. 2741/90. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition. He sought for quashing the order dt. 2-2-1990 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bamako and Returning Officer (Election Officer) City Municipal Council, Bagalkot rejecting his nomination paper. Learned single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy by way of an election petition is available.2. Writ Appeal No. 315/1990 is preferred against the order dt. 8-2-1990 passed in writ petition No. 2888/90. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition. He has sought for quashing the order dt. 5-2-1990 passed by the Returning Officer, City Municipal Council, Elections, Ranebennur, Dharwar District rejecting his nomination paper for reserved seat and accepting and treating it as the one for general seat. Learned single Judge hasdeclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. Vs. Kooky Roadways P. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1990
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas418(Kar); ILR1990KAR2230
1. The order by which a petition for winding up of a company was dismissed by a learned single judge of this court, * is appealed against in this Original Side Appeal presented under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd., the appellant herein, was the petitioner in the company petition filed in this court under clause (e) of section 433 of the Act against Kooky Roadways P.Ltd., the respondent therein, which is now the respondent herein. The prayer for ordering the winding up of the respondent-company's inability to pay its debts. The case set out in the petition as to how the respondent-company was unable to pay its debts may be put thus : The petitioner, Kudremukh Iron Ore Co.Ltd., is a Government of India enterprise, which had to carry its goods comprising steel materials from Banglore to Mangalore. The respondent-company, a public carrier, was engaged by the petitioner for carriage of certain quantities of the said steel materia...
Tag this Judgment!Machettira Machaiah Vs. Machettira Kariappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR977; 1990(1)KarLJ304
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. The petitioners have questioned the impugned order of the third respondent allowing the petition of respondents herein for partition of certain properties by metes and bounds and for allotment of shares to the respondents. According to the petitioners, 'A' schedule lands annexed to the Writ Petition are jama bane lands which have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the family of Machettira and the petitioners as well as the respondents belong to the said family. Whereas the petitioners belong to one branch of the family, respondents 1 and 2 belong to the other. It is stated that there was a division of status between the two branches about hundred years ago and that all the immovable properties have been in separate possession and enjoyment of the said two branches. It is not necessary to refer to further details in regard to the property in question.2. The first respondent preferred an application purported to be under [Section] Regulation 127 of the Coor...
Tag this Judgment!New Cement Concrete Works Vs. Additional Superintendent of Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1276; 1990(1)KarLJ350
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. Petitioner, admittedly, is a tenant of the second respondent Loka Shikshana Trust. It appears that there exist disputes between the petitioner and other tenants on the one hand and the trustees of the Trust on the other hand in regard to ingress and egress to their respective premises in having the gate closed. In that connection, civil suits are pending in the Court of the Munsiff at Hubli. A temporary injunction has also been obtained by the petitioner, that pending disposal of the suit, none should restrict the petitioner to have access to his premises. The second and third respondents are defendants in the said suit. It is further averred by the petitioner that the obstruction caused by respondents 2, 3 and persons claiming and acting on their instructions, is such which impairs their rights as tenants as they are required to produce identity cards and passes etc., to pass through the gate. It is further alleged that adjacent to the old gates, new ga...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Mohamed Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1973
Shyamsundar, J.1. This appeal viz., Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 1989 and its sibling Criminal Appeal 428/89 arise out of and are directed against the Judgment and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C.22/85 on the file of that Court.2. Therein six persons stood their trial having been indicted for the offence of having committed the murder of one Imrana Begum and thereafter having attempted to conceal evidence of the said murder. The aforesaid accused persons had a barrage of charges to face are connected with the death of Imrana Begum. The Investigation into the charges against those people was initially in the hands of the police of the Mandi Police Station and -was subsequently picked up by the Core of Detectives ('COD') who concluded the investigation and filed a charge-sheet against all the six accused for the offence of murder and other allied offences.3. At. the trial the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and marked 26 documents which are at Exs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »