Karnataka Court March 1991 Judgments
Nandi Housing Private Limited Vs. Smt. Indrani Chandrasekhar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant189; 1991(1)KarLJ514
1. This miscellaneous First Appeal is presented by the defendant (appellant herein) aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-1989 made by the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City on I.A. Nos.1 and 3. I.A. No. 1 was an application filed by the plaintiff (respondent herein) in a suit instituted by her for partition of her 25% share and separate possession of the plaint schedule land. In the said suit, the respondent made an application numbered as I.A. No. 1 seeking an ex parte order of injunction restraining the appellant from proceeding with the construction on any portion of the suit land. The Court granted the ex parte order of injunction sought, by order dated 19-6-1989. Subse-quently, the respondent entered appearance and made an application numbered as I.A. No. 3 for vacating the said order of injunction, which has been dismissed by the trial Court while affirming the order on I.A. No. 1 previously made granting injunction.2. The facts necessary, for appreciating the rival co...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Shenai Vs. Mangalore University, Mangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant202; 1991(2)KarLJ140
ORDER1. Issue rule.The question that arises for considerationin this petition is whether failure to attend anexamination should be construed as failure topass the examination. In other words, whether non-attendance of a candidate at anexamination should be treated as an attemptat an examination? . -2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner was a student of the Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, which is affiliated to the first respondent University. From the averments in the petition, it appears that the petitioner has maintained a good academic record throughout, having obtained I Class in the I Year M.B.B.S., Degree examination and again I Class with Distinction at the II Year M.B.B.S., Degree examination. However, the petitioner could not take the Final Year M.B.B.S., Part-I examination, which was held from 17th January 1989, though he had paid the necessary fee to the first respondent University for entrance to the said examination. According to the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. S. Dhandapani Modaliar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ24; ILR1991KAR2040; 1991(2)KarLJ486
Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Karnataka against the judgment and order of the J.M.F.C., Malur, Dt. 24th Feb., 1987 in C.C. No. 270 of 1984 acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. The respondent was prosecuting on the basis of a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Kolar under S. 18A read with S. 28, S. 18(a)(vi) read with R. 65(6) and S. 27(b), S. 18(a)(vi) read with R. 65(18) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned Magistrate held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondent and consequently ordered his acquittal. 2. We heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the appellant and the counsel for the respondent at length. We found that some of the important suggestions which should have been put to the witnesses had not been put to them and therefore many statements made by the witnesses went untested by cross-examination. Obviously,...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1321; 1991(2)KarLJ480
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. The matter having been posted to-day for being spoken, I heard Sri Shivappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagannath, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The Order made on 1-2-1991 is recalled.2. The petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has challenged the legality and correctness of the Order, Annexure-C, dated 30-4-1985 made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga, respondent-1 herein, in case No. SC. PTL.(A) 148/84-85 confirming the order made by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent-2 herein, in case PTL.32/83-84 dated 25-4-1984 holding that the alienation made by respondent-3 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question was null and void under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the Act for short).3. The matter arises this way:The undisputed facts as disclosed in the pleadings as well as t...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commercial Ta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1991
Reported in: [1991]83STC356(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The petitioner is an undertaking of the Kerala State Government and a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act). The petitioner entered into agreements with the suppliers of cement from Taiwan and South Korea for the importation of cement. A shipment of cement which was due to be berthed in Cochin had to be diverted to the Mangalore port on account of congestion in Cochin port and adequate berthing place was not available there. 2. The cement meant for the petitioner was unloaded in Mangalore port on account of supervening circumstances and the exigencies mentioned above. The said cement imported was meant for sale by the petitioner-company in kerala. Even before the consignment left Taiwan and South Korea, the buyers in kerala had placed orders with the petitioner for supply of cement and had made payments in advance also. After the cement was unloaded in Mangalore port, a part of the consignment was transported in trucks to Kerala and a...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Wire and Wire Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)109CTR(Kar)82; [1992]196ITR426(KAR); [1992]196ITR426(Karn)
K. Shivshankar Bhat, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), which read thus : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances or the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the claim of the applicant under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing the claim of the applicant under section 35B of the Act ?' 2. The second question need not detain us for long since, in several references, we have already held that weighted deduction claimed by the assessee under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not deductible, - these are freight and forwarding charges, packing and loading charges, bank charges and commission paid for procuring sales to Indian agents. These items would not fall within sub-clause (iii) of section 35B(1)(b); no other sub-clause of the said section is attracted. Hence, the said qu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. International Instruments Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR792(KAR); [1992]196ITR792(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act for short), the following question has been referred for out consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 64,071 being bonus paid in excess of 20 per cent. When section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, restricts such allowance to the amount payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1977-78. The previous year ending is on December 31, 1976. In May, 1977, at a meeting of the directors of the assessee-company, it was resolved to make certain payments to be workmen by way of bonus. This was found to be in excess of the amount payable under section 31A of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and therefore, this excess amount was disallowed when it was claimed as a deduction by the assessee. 3. The Appellate Tribunal found that there was t...
Tag this Judgment!Davanagere Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Chairman C.B.E. and C.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: 1993LC80(Karnataka); 1991(55)ELT295(Kar)
ORDER1. The petitioner-Company is the owner of a composite-mill in Davanagere - M/s. The Davanagere Cotton Mills Ltd. In the petitioner's mill different kinds of yarn which are ultimately consumed in the manufacture of different kinds of fabrics, are produced. 2. The petitioner had, in an earlier writ petition filed before this Court (Writ Petn. No. 19994/81), sought for a declaration that the yarn, produced by it and utilised in the manufacture of fabrics in its own factory, was not liable to pay excise-duty. The writ petition was later amended by adding an additional prayer challenging Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, as amended by Notification dated 20-2-1982 and also the validity of Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982, which gave retrospective effect to the amended Rules, with effect from 28-2-1944 when the Central Excises and Salt Act, was enacted. This Court upheld the validity of the Rules and dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 3-3-1986. 3. After the dismi...
Tag this Judgment!G.V. Rudrappa Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2497
M. Ramakrishna, J. 1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the notification, Annexure-G, dated 22-6-1984 made by the State of Karnataka, respondent-1 herein, for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from the land bearing Sy.No. 99/E situated in Bull Temple Road, Bangalore, and for such other direction or order as this Court deems fit, for the reasons stated in the Writ Petition.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under:-The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No. 99/E situated in Bull Temple Road, Bangalore City. The land measures 46,143 1/2 sq. feet with the boundaries as described in the first para of the Writ Petition. At the request of the then Administrator of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, respondent-1 issued a notification No. RD 85 AQW 75 dated 17-6-1977 under Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as th...
Tag this Judgment!Poovanigowda Vs. Vasantha Alias Subba Rao and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant254; 1991(2)KarLJ567
ORDER1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the lower appellate court in R.A. 18/1987 on the file of the Civil Judge at Puttur. Lower appellate court, by the said judgment and decree, reversed the finding of the trial-court in O.S. No. 236 of 1978 on the file of the Principal Munsiff at Puttur. 2. Bare facts necessary for disposing of this Second Appeal that arc required to be stated are as follows:-- Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties on 2-12-1978. Having failed to secure a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession of the suit schedule properties in earlier suit filed in the same Court on the ground that they had not proved their possession on date of suit to obtain the permanent injunction for which they hadprayed for. In the second suit, they pleaded the manner in which they had acquired title and why they wanted declaration of title in hav...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »