Karnataka Court March 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.
Academy of Music Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3111; 1991(2)KarLJ91
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. Academy of Music has questioned the order of the Government dated 29-11-1984 rescinding an earlier order dated 7-1-1981 under which the State Government had converted the loan of Rs. 20.20 lakhs to the petitioner into a grant. 2. The facts leading to the impugned order and consequently the Writ Petition may be stated briefly:- Academy of Music, which is a body registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, obtained a site on lease from the Bangalore City Corporation in 1970, An edifice as a befitting memorial to late Sri Chowdiah, the internationally reputed violinist of Karnataka, was decided to be put up by the petitioner at an estimated cost of Rs. 61 lakhs. The monumental construction is now come to be known as 'Chowdiah Memorial Hall' situate in Vyalikaval, Bangalore. Funds were collected from various sources from among the members of the public and loans were raised from Banks with an initial grant of loan by the State G...
V.T. Krishnamoorthy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1183; 1991(2)KarLJ158
ORDERMohan, C.J. 1. The short facts leading to this Writ Petition are as follows:-The property in question which is a building, is sought to be acquired for public purpose, to wit, for construction of HMT Ltd. Corporate Head Office Administrative building and Multi Storeyed building for Administrative Office for the Vysya Bank Ltd. The acquisition is under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 19-6-1982 and was published in Karnataka Gazette on 1-7-1982. During the statutory enquiry under Section 5A, the objection was that the khatedar and anubhavdar as notified in Section 4(1) Notification as V.T. Padmanabhan Mudaliar had died on 22-7-1980, and therefore the said notification was bad. This objection was overruled. Equally the other objection opposing the acquisition was also overruled. Thereafter the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was made on 19-2-1933 and was published in ...
Mohammed Quadri Bagadad Devara Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1526; 1991(1)KarLJ506
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In all those petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the Notification dated 18-7-1981 bearing No. LAQ/I/CR.74/80-81 published in the Gazette dated 13-8-1981 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Karnataka Act No. 17/61 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also the Notification bearing No. RD 339 AQD 84 dated 27-3-1984 published in the Official Gazette dated 19-4-1984 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. The lands in question are acquired for formation of New Market Yard II Stage between Amargof and Bhairidevarkoppa by the Hubli Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The petitioners claim to be the persons interested in the land in question which are as follows: 1. Block 257/1 of Bhairidevarkoppa which is described by the petitioner in W.P.9597/1986 as Plot No. 1; Block 257/1 A;2. Block 257/1 which is described by the petitioner in W.P.9598...
State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railway, Hubli Vs. Dashr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2632; ILR1991KAR1542
Singh, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, Bellary, in Spl. Case No. 27/1984, dated 31st March, 1987. The respondent was charged of having committed offences punishable under section s 409 and 201 of the Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under section s. 52 and 53 of the Post Office Act. 2. We may only briefly state the facts of the case since we have decided to send back the matter to the trial Court for examination of the accused afresh under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'. The case of the prosecution was that the respondent was a Mail Guard in the Railway Mail Service working in the Hubli Division. On the 15th of October, 1983, his duty was to guard the mail from Hubli to Guntakal and back. It appears that on that day, when the respondent was on duty between Guntakal and Hubli, the mail cons...
P.B. Shanthappa Vs. Mehboobi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2854; 1991(2)KarLJ415
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. As this Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of on a short ground it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 31-8-1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge. Arsikere in O.S.No. 44/1988.3. The learned Civil Judge has stayed the further proceedings in Execution Case No. 146/1989 pending on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Arsikere. The Judgment Debtors in Ex.Case No. 146/1989 have filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that the land bearing S.No. 246 measuring 2 acres 14 guntas belongs to them and for a permanent injunction; whereas the defendant in O.S.No. 44/1988 has obtained a decree against the plaintiffs 2 to 4 for a declaration that 4 1/2 guntas comprised in S.No. 247 belongs to him and for possession of the same. It is to execute that decree the Execution Case No. 146/1989 is filed in the Court of the I Additional Munsiff, Arsikere.4. Now the point for consideration is as to whether ...
Sanjeevamma Vs. Annyappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4544
ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) - Appellate Court: Interference with orders of trial Court: where material & findings arrived at contrary to pleadings or misdirection or non-consideration thereof & where orders arbitrary, perverse or capricious.No doubt Appellate Court can interfere with the orders of thetrial Court provided it is shown that the material made availableby either of the parties to the proceedings and the findingsarrived at are contrary to the pleadings of the parties or theircomplete misdirection or non-considering any of the material. Butat the same time a restraint has been put on the Appellate Courtsto interfere in the discretionary order passed by the trial Courtsaying that it is quite unjust, unsafe and improper on the part ofthe Appellate Court to interfere in the orders passed by the trialCourts unless it is shown orders passed by the trial Court are inany way arbitrary, perverse or capricious, still the Appellate Courtshall put brake in exercise of its power of holding that m...
C. Narayanaswamy and Others, Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant28; 1991(2)KarLJ58
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. These writ petitions are by a few of the Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of Zilla Parishads challenging the validity of the Karnataka Ordinance No. 2 of 1991 promulgated on 1st February, 1991. By this Ordinance Sec. 167 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act') was amended by deleting the words 'not less than two-thirds of found in sub-section (3) thereof. By this amendment the Adhyakshas and Upadhyakshas of Zilla Parishads could be removed by a resolution passed by a simple majority of the members instead of the earlier requirement of two-thirds majority. 2. The Act was enacted in the year 1983, but it was enforced in the year 1985. Various local governments were constituted under the Act such as Mandal Panchayats (for the villages), Taluk Panchayat Santithis at the Taluk level and Zilla Parishads for the District level, excepting the areas covered by the Town Municipali...
Narasimha Murthy Vs. the State by Gouribidanur Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3205
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the petitioner u/S. 401 r/w S. 439, Cr.P.C. praying to grant him bail in Crime No. 135/1990 of Gowribidanur Police Station in Kolar District. The petitioner had filed a similar petition in the Court of Sessions Judge, Kolar, and the learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides dismissed that petition. Thereafter this petition is filed by the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case. 2. One Hanumantharayappa gave a complaint to the police and on the basis of that complaint the police registered a case in Crime No. 135/1990 for the offence punishable u/S. 302 r/w S. 34, IPC. 3. The facts of the prosecution case are as follows : The petitioner is the son of accused No. 2 Narasimhappa and accused No. 3 Lakshmidevamma is the wife of the petitioner. They are all agriculturists. 3-1. On 27-6-1990 at about 9-30 a.m., one Ramanjanappa was found cutting Easter...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahalinga Setty and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Kar)305; [1992]195ITR526(KAR); [1992]195ITR526(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The two questions referred under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read thus : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in restoring the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider allowance of investment allowance on machinery used in contract business 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of the machinery used in the construction or only on that part of the machinery which is used for fabricating articles used in construction ?' 2. The assessee is a contractor who is engaged in the work connected with the Krishna Project. The assessee claimed various deductions including investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. One of the items claimed by the assessee pertained to a sum of Rs. 2,270 in respect of general machinery which were used in the work taken by the assessee. This was granted. The first question referred above pertained to this allowance. Mr. G. Cha...
Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Kar)47; [1992]193ITR582(KAR); [1992]193ITR582(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read thus : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the liability to pay surtax is an admissible deduction in computing the total income (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred on physicians' samples is in the nature of advertisement expenditure falling within the restrictive provisions of section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The first question has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue following the decision of this court in CIT v. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. : [1983]144ITR936(KAR) . 3. The second question requires consideration. The assessee manufactures drugs. Physicians' samples were claimed as expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). This expenditure was treated as an expenditure incurred towards advertisement, publicity or ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »