Karnataka Court January 1991 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.
Ramesh Babu and Another Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1963
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition is filed u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. by the petitioners praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1001 of 1988 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case. The petition is admitted. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, I have heard this petition on merits today. 4. The Inspector of Drugs appointed u/S. 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has filed a complaint in the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore City, alleging that the petitioners and two other persons have committed the offences punishable u/S. 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for having committed the offence punishable u/S. 18(c), 18A and 22(i)(cca) of the said Act, and for having committed the offence punishable u/Ss. 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of the said Act. The lear...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.G.E.F. Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR358(KAR); [1992]195ITR358(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The following questions have been referred under provisions of the Income-tax Act for our answer : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on roads and culverts (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed the Income-tax officer to treat the technical know-how payment as a revenue expenditure ?' 2. These questions will have to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue following the decision of this court rendered in Income-tax Reference Case No. 138 of 1986 (dated January 9, 1991) (CIT v. NGEF Ltd. : [1992]195ITR360(KAR) ), wherein the earlier decision has been referred. Answered accordingly....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.G.E.F. Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: [1992]195ITR360(KAR); [1992]195ITR360(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The following two questions are referred for our answer under the provision of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on roads and culverts 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Income-tax Officer to treat the technical know-how payment as a revenue expenditure ?' 3. The first question is covered, against the Revenue, in the decision of this court in CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. : [1984]150ITR23(KAR) . The second question is covered, also against the Revenue, in the decision of this court reported in Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. v. CIT : [1978]114ITR443(KAR) . Consequently, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. ...
L.M. Shenvy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1209; 1991(1)KarLJ289
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a legal plea at the time of hearing that it is not open to the State Government to prescribe service conditions of employees of Co-operative Societies without adherence to the mandate of Section 129 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Since this is a substantive question of law, it is necessary to give a finding on this before going into other points in controversy.2. According to Section 129(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959:-'The State Government may, for the whole or any part of the State and for any class of Co-operative Societies, after previous publication, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purpose of this Act.(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-(c) The recruitment and conditions of service of employees of Co- operati...
K.P. Puttaram Vs. Vijaya Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3614; 1991(2)KarLJ280
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 28-2-1978 passed in O.S.No. 125/1973 by the II Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The defendants also have filed cross objections. Thus, the appeal and the cross objections are considered together.2. The Appeal arises out of a suit filed for a declaration that the order dismissing the plaintiff from service is wrongful and for award of damages in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Originally the plaintiff claimed damages in a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. However, he confined the claim for damages to a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The plaintiff also sought for a further direction to the defendants to pay interest to him on the amount of damages claimed at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and further interest at 6% per annum on the aggregate decree amount from the date of decree till realisation and costs of the suit.3. It is not necessary to advert to the pleadings of the parties as the ...
Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1137; 1991(1)KarLJ286
Hiremath, J. 1. The appellant sued the respondent for recovery of Rs. 3,27,582-94 ps. as amount due on the contract that was entered into between the appellant and the respondent, the appellant undertaking to supply the Hoist bridge, Electrically driven rope drum hoist, Fixed parts, wall plate with stainless steel clad flat and anchor girders and Gate leave consisting of skin plate assembly in different sets for Dantiwada Project undertaken by the respondent in the year 1965-66. Different rates were quoted by the appellant and the quotation accepted by the respondent was for Rs. 25,70,700/-. It was a part of the contract that the respondent should make payment as and when the running bills were presented and the balance amount would be claimed in the final bill. Thus on running bills Rs. 22,52,658-32 ps. were paid by the respondent The final bill was preferred by the appellant dated 20-3-1975 for the balance amount adding the sales tax of Rs. 9,541-26 ps. This bill was rejected by the ...
E.S. Venkatesha Guptha Vs. Savithramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2445; 1991(1)KarLJ477
K.A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of admission, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have entered caveat. Notice to other respondents has been dispensed with, as they had remained ex parte in the lower Appellate Court except respondent Nos. 5, 6, 10, 15, 18 and 19 who have been deleted on the basis of the Memo filed by the appellant. They are the subsequent purchasers from the appellant. They failed to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court which have gone against them, The records of the case are received.2.1. In the light of the contentions urged on both sides, the following substantial question of law arises for consideration. Hence the appeal is admitted. It is heard for final disposal.2.2. The substantial question of law is as to whether the document Ex.P-4 is a mortgage by conditional sale or sale with a condition of reconveyance?2.3. The appellant is 2nd defendant. Respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs 1 to 3. The appeal is preferred against the Judgment and...
Karnataka Board of Wakfs, Bangalore Vs. B.C. Nagaraja Rao and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Kant400; ILR1991KAR2456
ORDERHiremath, J.1. The present appellant was the second defendant in the original suit before the trial Court of the District Judge at Chickmagalur in which the plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 had sued the appellant as well as State Government, the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments, Karnataka and 5th respondent Sajjada Nashin for the reliefs stated in the plaint viz., for declaration that the suit institution is a religious institution being a holy place of worship belonging to Hindus and Mohammedans alike, that the same is not a Wakf property and inclusion of the plaint schedule property by the appellant in the list being improper and illegal does not affect the rights of plaintiffs or Hindus to the said properties and that since the appellant has no right to control or manage the said institution the administration, management and control ofthe schedule property be retransferred from the control of the appellant to that of the 3rd defendant -- the Commissioner. The...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electronics Research Industries Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Kar)51; [1991]192ITR20(KAR); [1991]192ITR20(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The following question has been referred to us for consideration under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the internal telephone system should be considered as 'plant' of the assessee's factory and investment allowance has to be granted ?' 2. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of electronic equipment. It has an internal telephone system with about 20 lines. This installation is claimed to be a plant and investment allowance was claimed by the assessee. However, the original authority did not grant the allowance but, on appeal, the same was granted by the Commissioner (Appeals). This order of the first appellate authority was affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, this reference at the instance of the Revenue. 3. The question arose under section 32A of the Income-tax A...
Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation Vs. Ravi P. Tiwari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR883; 1991(1)KarLJ282
Rama Jois, J.1. The following question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, In view of the objection raised by the office and the opposition of the learned Counsel for the said objection:'Whether an appeal lies to this Court against an order passed by the District Judge under Section 471 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976?'2. Section 471 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) reads:'471. DETERMINATION BY DISTRICT COURT OF SUMS PAYABLE: Where in any case not provided for in Section 180 any Municipal Authority or any person is required by or under this Act or any Rule, bye-law, regulation or contract made under it to pay any costs, damages, penalties, compensation, charges, fees, rents, expenses, contributions or other sums referred to in Section 470, the amount or apportionment of the same shall, in case of dispute, be ascertained and determined except as is otherwise provided in Sections 207, 407 or 460 or in the Land Acquisiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »