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.
T.K. Narayanaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2115; II(1991)DMC271; ILR1991KAR1839; 1991(1)KarLJ389
ORDER1. The challenge in this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) is to the order dated February 15, 1989, made by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, dismissing the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner herein under section 239 of the Code, seeking his discharge of the offences punishable under section 493 of the Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), maintained and affirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad, by the order dated October, 27, 1989, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 219/89. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent-State are heard. The record in the petition and the record and proceedings in C.C. No. 474/86 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, are perused and examined. 3. Before adverting to the two content...
Smt. Jayakumari Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Kar)274; ILR1991KAR856; [1991]191ITR273(KAR); [1991]191ITR273(Karn)
S. Mohan, C.J.1. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows : The estate duty of the deceased, Smt. H. H. Rajkuverba Maharani of Gondal came up for assessment. The death occurred on October 14, 1966. Therefore, the due date within which the return ought to have been filed is April 13, 1967. Extension was prayed for by the accountable person for filing the return. Such extension was granted by a letter dated November 22, 1967. The return was filed on January 5, 1968. On January 6, 1968, a provisional assessment to estate duty was made Rs. 6,67,615. The accountable person prayed for instalments. Whereupon, the appellant was ordered to pay the duty in instlaments, on November 29, 1968, under section 70(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This was with effect form January 5, 1968, viz., the da te on which the return was field. Thereafter, the final assess ment was made on November 30, 1972, estimating the duty at Rs. 63,15,970. On January 1, 1...
M.S. Moses Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR770; 1991(1)KarLJ299
Mohan, C.J.1. The facts leading to the Writ Appeal are as follows:On 1-11-1965 Notification under Section 4A(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 was issued Including Hoodi Village where the land forming the subject of this appeal is situated in Planning District 8C. This was classified as agricultural and residential use only. However, on 24-8-1934 a Notification under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 came to be issued declaring Hoodi Village as an Industrial Area for the purpose of the said Act and on the same date another Notification was issued under Section 1(3) of the said Act specifying the areas mentioned in the schedule making the Act applicable. On 21-9-1984 Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the said Act was issued notifying the intention to acquire the land. The said Notification was published in the Karnataka Government Gazette on 11-10-1984. The Comprehensive Development Plan was approved by the Governmen...
Mr. S. Bangarappa Vs. Somappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR970
Mohan, C.J.1. Thought our Judgment, the parties will be referred to in the manner they are arrayed in these Writ Appeals.2. The facts leading to these appeals are as follows:Respondents 8 and 9 were owners of Sy.Nos. 114 and 115 measuring 20 acres 26 guntas and 21 acres 21 guntas respectively of Lakkavalli Village, Sorab Taluk, Shimoga District. By and large, they were fallow and were cultivated by them personally. As per the entries in the Record of Rights in 1958-59 the column meant for cultivator mentions the name of Magur Parasanna. He is none other than the father of respondents 10 and 11. That position continued from 1959-60 to 1964-65. However, in 1965-66 onwards, the entries in the Record of Rights show the name of Magur Parasanna for Sy.No. 114, and for Sy.No. 115 the column remained blank. In 1966-67 the word '3' is found indicating thereby that they were under the personal cultivation of the owner. This position continued to be so even beyond 1-3-1974. We refer to the date 1...
Gat Nagamma Vs. Hardar Bahubali
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1560
ORDER 21 RULE 95 & SECTION 47: EXPLANATION II -Delivery of possession to auction purchaser within . Section 47 - To be decided by Executing Court not by separate suit.The Explanation makes it very clear that delivery of possession to an auction purchaser, whether he is a decree-holder or a stranger, in pursuance of a decree is a question between the parties to the suit and that it relates to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of Section 47 CPC...All questions arising between the auction purchaser and the Judgment debtor must be determined by the Executing Court and not by a separate suit. ...
N. Giriyappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3484
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. Since all these Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeal raise identical questions, they are dealt with under common order.2. The facts which do not admit of any controversy lie in a narrow compass. We will take up W.Ps.Nos. 19028 and 19029 of 1990. The facts of these cases would be sufficient. The petitioners are agriculturists. They obtained loan facilities from the 2nd respondent -the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Hospet. The object of the loan was to purchase Tractors for agricultural operations. They bear Tractor Loan Nos. TR/6 and TR/23 respectively. As per the agreement entered into by the petitioners with the Bank, they undertook to pay the interest at 12.5 per cent per annum. A Subsidy Scheme was introduced by the Government of Karnataka in G.O.No. RDC 132 CLS 83 (II) Bangalore, dated 11-4-1983. The instalments for repaying the loan with interest fell due on 30th September and 31st March of every co-operative year. The petition...
State Vs. Balawantrai Bhikabhai Parekh and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1222; ILR1991KAR1651
B.P. Singh, J. 1. We have heard the leaned counsel for the parties at length. A reference has been made to this Court by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Mysore (acting as Special Judge) in Special Cases Nos. 5/84, 10/84, 12/84, 13/84 and 20/84. The question referred to this Court is : 'Whether the right of speedy public trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India requires setting out an outer limit beyond which the trial of Criminal Cases amounts to violation of the fundamental right under the said article ?' Since we were of the view that reference is not competent under Section 395(2) of Cr.P.C. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties on that question. It has not been disputed before us that the reference will not fall under sub-section (1) of S. 395 of Cr.P.C., because the question involved is not as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation. It was however submitted that the ...
K.L. Poddar and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Kar)232; [1991]191ITR365(KAR); [1991]191ITR365(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. A short but interesting question arises in this reference. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax act, 1961, reads as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that legal expenses claimed by the assessee fall under section 80VV of the Act and not under section 37 of the Act ?'2. The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 1,300 as an expenditure under section 37 of the Act. This sum of Rs. 1,300 was paid to two legal practitioners a sum of Rs. 1,000 to tax counsel as a retainer fee and another sum of Rs. 300 to another person to represent the assessee before the Registrar of Companies in connection with the business of the assessee. The statement of the case is not very clear that this sum of Rs. 300 was allowed, but it states that out of the total legal expenses of Rs. 1,300, Rs. 800 was appropriated towards the estimated expenditure as falling under section 80VV of the Act. The ...
Mohammed Sab Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2587; 1991(2)KarLJ329
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for quashing the Notification No. LAQ.HS.CR.23/80-81 dated 29-12-1980/26-3-1981 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 9th April 1981 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Prior to the publication of the Notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, a Notification No. LAQ.HS.CR.35/79-80 dated 27-12-1980 under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act was also published in the Karnataka Gazette on 17-1-1980. Under the impugned Notifications, 3 lands bearing S.Nos. 210/A, 169/1 and 169/2 of Bhalki in Bidar District are proposed to be acquired. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that Section 3 of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 is unconstitutional.2. It is relevant to note that prior to t...
Shri Ganesha Beshaja Ashram Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3332; 1991(3)KarLJ435
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the provisions of Karnataka Improvement Boards Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are ineffective and inoperative as the Act was not reserved for consideration and assent of the President, because according to the petitioners, the said Act provides for compulsory acquisition of the property. They have also sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. SCM 39/79-80 dated Nil March, 1981 published in the Gazette of 4th June 1981 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act and the Notification bearing No. HUD 72 MIB.81 dated 28th August 1982 published in the Gazette of 9th September 1982 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act. Under these Notifications the lands belonging to the petitioners are to be acquired by the Board for public purpose viz., for the purpose of the Scheme framed by the Board.2. It is conte...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »