Karnataka Court February 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.
State of Karnataka Vs. Channabasappa S/O Hanumanthappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ95; ILR1991KAR1687; 1991(1)KarLJ376
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the State u/S. 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to cancel the bail granted to the respondents in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 56/1990 on the file of the Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Bellary. 2. I have heard the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents fully and perused the records of the case. 3. The facts leading to this petition are follows : Bellary Rural Police station, Bellary has registered a case in Crime No. 98 of 1990 against the respondents for the offences punishable u/Ss. 143, 147, 148, 324, 435 read with S.149 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that on 29-04-1990 at about 5-30 p.m. Huts of Harijan colony at Sangankal village were set on fire when hundreds of persons indulged in arson and the complainant Bharmappa sustained injury as a result of assault by one Yerragudi Rajasekhar who hit him with but-end of an axe on his head when he pleaded not to set f...
Malumbi Vs. AlbIn Abdul
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ955; ILR1991KAR2716; 1991(1)KarLJ592
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. This Revision Petition is filed against an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwad on I.A.IX filed by the claimants requesting the Tribunal to modify the award regarding its direction to deposit the compensation amount awarded to the claimants in any nationalised Bank in the manner indicated in the said award.2. A few facts are; Deceased Dastagirisab met with a motor accident on 18-8-1985 who was the only bread earner to the members of the family. Because of his untimely and unforeseen death, his wife and four children became destitutes. They approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwad, with an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after hearing both sides, namely, the claimants and so also the owner and driver of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 77,000/- to all the claimants, and then it apportioned in the f...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Herekar's Hospital and Maternity Home
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)96CTR(Kar)182; [1991]192ITR525(KAR); [1991]192ITR525(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Out of the three references, in the fi rst reference, the assessee is a firm. In the other two references, the partner of the said firm is the asessee. 2. The following questions are referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee's ctivity did not amount to business (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Income-tax Officer's action under section 147(b) on the basis of audit objection amounted to 'change of opinion' (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee's activity did not amount to business Assuming, but not admitting, that the firm's activity amounted to profession, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribuna...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smith, Kline and French (India) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)KarLJ374
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing Rs. 1,36,261 also as deduction for the assessment year 1977-78 being the contribution made to an approved gratuity fund even though the employees were admitted to the fund in the years relevant to earlier assessment years ?' 2. Earlier, during the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee had claimed deduction towards estimated gratuity liability, but this was not allowed. At that time, there was no fund established by the assessee. In October, 1975, the assessee created a trust and established a fund towards its gratuity liability with effect from October 1, 1975. The fund required approval. This approval was granted during the assessment year in question with retrospective effect. The assessee thereafter contributed to this fund as part of the initial...
Farida Prime Tannery and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]84STC133(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In these writ petitions, the main question is whether dressed hides and skins and raw hides and skins are different commodities, for the purposes of item (iii) of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act'), and other provisions of the said Act. 2. The goods specified under section 14 are declared as of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce, under various items. 3. Item (iii) reads : 'Hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state.' 4. Under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the State Act', for short), section 5(4) read with its Fourth Schedule governs the declared goods. Item 3 of the Fourth Schedule is in identical phraseology as that of item (iii) of section 14 of the Central Act. Under section 15 of the Central Act, every State law in so far as it imposes a tax on the sale or purchase of declared goods, are subjected to certain restrictions; (a) tax payable in respect of the sale or purchase of such go...
Premier Irrigation Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)KarLJ433; [1993]88STC468(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The questions involved pertain to the taxability of pipes, pumps, engines, motor, etc., sold as part of a sprinkler system under entry 20 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a clarification that these are to be taxed under the said entry. It reads : 'All machinery and spare parts and accessories thereof.' 2. The petitioners contend that pipes, pumps, etc., are articles having independent use and they are bought or sold for various uses and these articles referred in the Commissioner's clarification dated May 25, 1987, are not accessories to a 'sprinkler', while the Revenue supports its attempt to rope in these articles under entry 20. 3. Therefore, the question is whether those articles like pipes in common use, which can be and are used elsewhere, also would not be 'accessories', just because, they are sold along with the sprinklers or by the dealer in sprinklers. 4. ...
Suvasini Beedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Iii ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: [1991]83STC209(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In all these writ petitions the main contention pertains to the scope of entry 2 in Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979, as it stood substituted by the Karnataka Act 38 of 1984 (which amended the main Act with effect from April 1, 1983). The question is whether tobacco just rolled with the leaves, before it is appropriately heated to become the final product as a beedi, also is a beedi or a 'like tobacco product' referred to in the said entry. For the sake of convenience this beedi is referred to as 'raw beedi'. The respondents sought to levy entry tax on the entry of these goods into the local areas, and hence these writ petitions. During the pendency of these writ petitions, assessment orders were completed as permitted by this Court and consequently, the petitioners have amended the writ petitions by filing appropriate applications. Two periods are involved - (i) January 1, 1983 t...
Mohammed Hanif Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2646; 1991(2)KarLJ335
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Petition, in which the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order made by the State Government under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('the Act' for short), the following two questions of law arise for consideration:(1) Whether in a case where the grounds of detention including the documents on the basis of which the detention order is made, are not supplied in a language which the detenu is able to read and understand, which constitutes a serious defect and furnishes a ground for setting aside an order of detention, giving of legal assistance to the detenu to assist him to make a representation, with whose assistance the detenu had in fact made a representation, cures the defect of not furnishing the documents in the language known to the detenu?(2) Whether the Government is under a duty to consider the representation made by the detenu, though addressed to the Advisory...
Smt. Susheelamma Vs. the State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2436; ILR1991KAR762; 1991(2)KarLJ129
ORDER1. A simple Writ petition (Habeas Corpus) complicated by the cleverness of the police is what this case illustrates. 2. Smt. Susheelamma is the petitioner. She states in her petition that her husband Govindaraju and her sister's son Doraiswamy, both residing at No. 23, 9th Main Road, K. P. Agraharam, Bangalore-23, are law abiding and peaceful citizens of Bangalore City. 3. Govindaraju is a dealer in Kerosene. Doraiswamy assists Govindaraju in the said business. 4. On 5-2-1991, in the early hours, the second respondent Sub-Inspector of Police, Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bangalore, came and took away both these persons. This was under the pretext that the Sub-Inspector (Sri Chikkanna), required them for some purpose. When the said persons, namely, Govindaraju and Doraiswamy asked as to the purpose of their being taken to the police station, they were informed that the same will be let known on their coming to the police station. Thereafter, nothing was heard of these two persons....
B. Umesh Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR824
Mohan, C.J.1. All these matters can be dealt with under a common Judgment since the point involved is one and the same.2. Lands bearing various survey numbers measuring an extent of 1,134 Acres and 12 Guntas situate in Nagasettyhalli and Chikkamaranahalli Villages were notified for acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA'). This was for the formation of what is known as 'Rajmahal Vilas II Stage'. The preliminary Notification was issued on 3-1-1977, and the Final Notification was issued on 2-8-1978. Pursuant to this, an award was passed and possession was taken in 1980 and 1982. The BDA decided to construct 558 High Income Group Houses in Rajmahal Vilas II Stage under 'Self Financing Scheme'. Applications were called for, for allotment of houses. Several applicants had made initial deposits varying from Rs. 90,000/- per house. It was assured by the BDA that the houses would be completed by the end of 1983. The land for the scheme was selected out of the above ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »