Karnataka Court March 1990 Judgments
Sannarevanappa Bharamajappa Kalal @ Kuncharkar and Others Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ21; ILR1990KAR1205; 1990(1)KarLJ361
ORDER1. Heard for admission. Admitted. Heard on merits as well. 2. The order passed by the II Additional J.M.F.C., Ranebennur, in C.C. No. 582/1988 on 25-11-1989 under section 319, Cr.P.C. taking cognizance of the offences against the present petitioners has been challenged in this revision petition. For offences under sections 447, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. a complaint was filed in the Ranebennur Town Police Station against 15 persons including the present petitioners. On investigation, a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. came to be filed against 3 of the accused named in the complaint. During trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses. Soon after the first witness i.e., P.W. 1 complainant was examined in chief, the Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court that because the complainant has deposed in his evidence-in-chief against these petitioners as well, he sought for time to file application to take cognizance of the offences against them as well. Thus, the evi...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Rangaswamy and Co. Vs. D.V. Jagadish
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR346]; ILR1990KAR1387; 1990(2)KarLJ307
K.A. Swami, J.1. Though this Writ Appeal is posted for orders, by consent of both sides, it is heard for final disposal. 2. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated January 12, 1990 passed in W.P. No. 22172/1989. The appellant in this appeal was the petitioner in the writ petition. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were also the respondents 1 and 2 the writ petition. Therefore, in this Judgment the parties, will be referred to as appellant and respondents. 3. The appellants has sought for quashing the orders dated June 24, 1989 and November 3, 1989 passed in Reference No. 79/88 passed by the 2nd respondent and produced as Annexures C and F respectively. 4. Under Annexure-C, the second respondent directed the II party to pay interim relief of Rs. 1,200/- per month to the 1st Party (the 1st respondent here in) from the date of I.A. No. I. i.e., July 7, 1988 till the date of disposal of the main petition. Annexure-F is another order by which the second respondent has refused to set ...
Tag this Judgment!Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha and Others Vs. State of Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas278(Kar); ILR1990KAR2080
K.A. Swami, J.1. These writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 3rd January, 1990, passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 19340 to 19343 of 1989 and Writ Petition No. 18760 of 1989. The appellants were the petitioners in writ petitions. Therefore, in this judgment the appellants will be referred to as the petitioners. 2. In the writ petitions, the petitioners sought for issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from enforcing the Government Order dated May 17, 1989, bearing No. CMW/73/CCB/89, produced as annexure `A' and also to quash the resolution, annexure `K' passed by the third respondent, in respect of the appellant in W. A. No. 435 of 1990,dated September 7, 1989, resolving to have ceding with the District Central Co- operative Bank, Bellary. 3. The petitioners put forth four contentions before the learned single judge. (i) The order, annexure `A', issued by the State Government is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature and, t...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmappa Sabanna Madar Vs. Chief Secretary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1637
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27-1-1988 passed by the Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishat, disqualifying them from the membership of the Mandal Panchayat, Murnal, Bagalkot Taluk, Bijapur District.2. Few facts are necessary to be stated for the purpose of determination of the issues involved in these Writ Petitions.3. The petitioners are members of the Murnal Mandal Panchayat, Taluk Bagalkot, District Bijapur, and that they are duly elected members is not in dispute. They belonged to Janata Party and they were elected on Janata Party Tickets as members of the Mandal Panchayat. On 30-12-1987, an ordinary meeting of the Mandal Panchayat was convened and the petitioners participated in the meeting. At the meeting, the petitioners opposed the confirmation of .the resolution passed in Item-10 of the previous meeting of the Panchayat and further when the resolution was put to vote the petitioners opposed the resolution whereas seven members of the same p...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Master Krishna Kumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR644(KAR); [1990]186ITR644(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ300
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In this reference made under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the questions of law referred for our opinion really : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only 50% of the estate passed on the death of the deceased (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the act of adoption did not amount to a disposition under Section 2(15) read with Section 9 of the Estate Duty Act ?' 2. The brief facts of the case which have given rise to the above questions are these : Two persons by name Babu Rao and Venkateswara Rao together with their respective wives constituted a Hindu joint family. The two brother constituted a coparcenary. Babu Rao died in the year 1945 leaving behind him his widow, Ahalya Bai. The other brother, Venkateswara Rao, also died in the year 1947 leaving behind him his widow, kalavathi. On and after the death of Babu Rao and Venkateswara Rao, it appears that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Khoday Eswarsa and Sons Vs. Commisioner of Gift-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1990
Reported in: (1990)86CTR(Kar)250; ILR1990KAR2403; [1990]186ITR388(KAR); [1990]186ITR388(Karn)
S.R. Rajasekhapa Murthy, J. 1. These references arise under section 26 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short). T.R.C. Nos. 66 and 67 of 1982 are references under section 26(1) of the act made at the instance of the assessee and T.R.C. No. 26 of 1985 is a reference under section 26(3) of the Act at the instance of the Department. The following three questions are referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for our opinion (In T.R.C. Nos. 66 and 67 of 1982) :- '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a deemed gift taxable under the Gift-tax Act, 1958, for the assessment year 1970-71 in respect of the arrangement in pursuance of the agreement dated November 21, 1969, between the assessee and Messrs. Khoday Industries Pvt., Ltd. (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a partnership firm is an assessable entity under the provis...
Tag this Judgment!D.M. Samyulla Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1097; 1990(1)KarLJ352
ORDERS - DISOBEDIENCE - Order not to be disregarded but clarification/modification to be sought - Not open to party to decide whether order null or valid, regular or irregular.It is only in cases where there is an order restraining an authority or person from doing any particular act and the person or authority considers that the order was erroneous, the person or authority cannot take upon himself/itself to disregard the order as issued, but has to seek clarification or modification of the order...A party who knows an order, whether it is null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it and it would be dangerous to allow the party to decide as to whether an order was null or valid and whether it was regular or irregular.Such a principle would be attracted in cases where there has been an order of the Court against any particular person or authority and that person or authority takes the stand that the order of the Court is illegal or it is bad for not following a...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Nagaraja Setty Vs. Bramalavathamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant1; ILR1990KAR1535
ORDER1. The tenant has come up in revision against the order of the District Court, which directed the eviction of the tenant from the entire premises, whereas, the trial court had directed only partial eviction. The entire premises in quest ion here, is it self is a portion of a house bearing Door No. 365/6, The monthly rent is Rs.80/-; the schedule premisesis in Mysore City.2. The landlady, for want of her own accommodation has been residing in her married daughter's house at Tumkur; she has no other premises of her own in mysore; her desire is to spend her old-age in her own house. Earlier there was an order of eviction; the District Court revised it and remitted back the matter to the trial Court to consider the question of partial eviction after affording further opportunity to lead evidence; the tenant adduced some evidence and a Court Commissioner was appointed to gather information as to the schedule premises and to find out the feasibility of dividing the premises.3. The sole ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. G.M. Mascarenhas Vs. R. Venkatachalm
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR911; 1990(3)KarLJ324
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner has questioned the competence of the caveator and objects to the caveat.2. Petitioner applied on 31-7-1989, under the Indian Succession Act ('the Act') for the grant of a probate in respect of the Will left by Miss. Madapa; one of the Items of the estate of the deceased is a school called 'Home School, in Bangalore. The petition was advertised in Times of India (Bangalore Edition) dated 2-9-1989. The Caveator filed his Caveat on 18-8-1989 wherein only a cryptic statement was made to the effect that nothing be done in the matter of the estate of the deceased without notice to the Caveator. The Caveator also filed I.A.No. I seeking a direction to the State Bank of India not to permit the petitioner or anyone claiming under him to operate the S.B. Account which was a joint SB Account opened by the deceased along with the Caveator (obviously, in connection with the administration of the Home School). I.A.No. II is filed by the Caveator seeking p...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mukambika Vs. A. Premananda Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2289; 1990(2)KarLJ425
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Before considering these Revision Petitions, it is necessary to note that C.R.P.No. 2570/1983 was dismissed earlier as not maintainable. But subsequently, the Supreme Court held that a second Revision lies to this Court and consequently such Revision Petitions were revived. There was omission to revive C.R.P. No. 2570/83 wherein Meera Bai and others are the petitioners.2. All these Revision Petitions are filed by the tenants of the respective premises under their occupation. There was common evidence and a common order was passed by the trial Court as well as the District Court. Hence I am dealing all of them together.(In CRP 2337/83 there is an additional ground urged by the tenants. For the sake of convenience only I am referring them as tenants, since there is a dispute about their legal status).3. First I shall proceed to decide the question involved in C.R.P. No. 2337/83. The premises in occupation of the tenants here is Door No. 9-316 of Kasba Bazaar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »