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 Vs. Balawantrai Bhikabhai Parekh and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC285
ORDERB.P. Singh, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. A reference has been made to this Court by the Principal District & Session Judge, Mysore (acting as Special Judge) in Special Case 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. PC 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 Section 395 of Cr. PC 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 ref...
State of Karnataka Vs. Narayanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ225; 1991(1)KarLJ492
ORDER1. This criminal petition is filed by the State under Section 439(2) read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying to cancel the bail granted to the respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 141/1989 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the respondent fully and I have perused the records. 3. The Sidlaghatta Town Police have registered a case in Crime No. 14/1989 against the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 401, I.P.C. The offences alleged against the respondent-accused are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail in a case punishable with death or imprisonment for life at the stage when the case was being investigated. It appears that the respondent has filed an earlier application and that came to be dismissed on the ground that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a murder case. But, subsequently in view of the rulin...
J. Seetha Rama Sastry Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3053; [1993]199ITR588(KAR); [1993]199ITR588(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In all these writ petitions an identical question is involved wherein the petitioners have sought the striking down of item No. 20 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short), as substituted by the Karnataka Amendment Act No. 15 of 1989.2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in the first of these writ petitions are referred to wherever necessary.3. The Act was enacted in the year 1976 to provide for the levy and collection of tax on professions, trades, callings and employment in the State. The rate of tax and the person charged with the tax are enumerated in the Schedule to the Act. Item No. 20 to the Schedule was substituted by Karnataka Act No. 15 of 1989, with effect from April 1, 1989. By virtue of this of this each partner of firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and engaged in any profession, trade, calling or employment is levied with an annual tax of Rs. 500. This...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›