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.
G.M. Kumar Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1289; 1991(1)KarLJ340
Mohan, C.J.1. It is trite saying that hard cases make bad law. This is illustrated by these Appeals. The short facts are as follows:The appellants in response to a Notification issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission staked their claims for the post of Assistant Surgeon cum Medical Officer in Group A, Class-I. That the applications were made within the prescribed time. It was also accompanied by fee as well as the documents in support of the candidature. Unfortunately, for them, in one case though the requisite fee of Rs. 22/- has been paid, it came to be rejected on the wrong premises that there was a deficit while in the case of other appellant only Rs. 18/- had been paid as against prescribed fee of Rs. 22/- and that deposit came to be made good, later. Nevertheless, these applications came to be rejected on account of deficit. The rejection of these applications were sought to be questioned in W.P.No. 33/1991 and W.P.No.26269/1990. The learned Judge (G.P. Shivaprakash, J)...
State Vs. Kudligere Hanumanthappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ832; ILR1991KAR2033
Shyamsundar, J. 1. The State has notified the respondents in this appeal arising from an order of acquittal passed by the J.M.F.C., Davangere in C.C. No. 4878 of 1988 on 19-9-1990, of its intention to challenge the acquittal of the said accused. The learned Magistrate had allowed the accused before him who were six in number to enter into a compromise with the complainant in the case at whose behest the Police of Jagalur had occasion to investigate into complaint filed by him pursuant to which a charge-sheet listing indeed the commission of large number of offences by these accused punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 354, 355, 448, 504, 506 r/w 149, IPC and S. 7(3) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, had been filed. But before trial could commence the accused were permitted by the Court to compound all the offences allegedly committed by them and in consequence they stood absolved of all the charges. The State has challenged their acquittal as aforesaid. 2. Amongst other t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Widia (India) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)97CTR(Kar)218; [1992]193ITR475(KAR); [1992]193ITR475(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The following three question are referred in these two references under the provisions of the Income-tax Act : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing investment allowance on the enhanced cost of assets due to fluctuations in foreign currency rates and accordingly directing the Income-tax Officer to recompute the investment allowance and grant the deductions (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation and investment allowance claimed by the assessee on the capitalised amount of Rs. 13,79,406 paid/payable in instalments in respect of capital assets under the deferred payment scheme (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excess available surplus carried over from the earlier year under the provisions of the Payment of bonus Act cannot be treated ...
State of Karnataka Vs. Cantreads Private Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1371; 1991(1)KarLJ500
Mohan, C.J.1. All these Writ Appeals and the Writ Petition can be dealt with under a common Judgment since the point involved is one and the same, namely, whether R.M.A. rubber sheets of various grades could be called forest produce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as it stood prior to Amendment Act No. 10 of 1989.2. The facts in W. A.No.526 of 1989 would be enough to dispose of these cases. Hence, we propose to take up W.A.No.526 of 1989 first. This Writ Appeal is against the Judgment in W.P.No.23718 of 1981. Respondent 1 is a Company engaged in the manufacture of tread rubber. It negotiated with the State of Karnataka appellant-1 herein, for supply of 60 tonnes of natural rubber of Grade RMA I to V per month for a period of five years upto 31-3-1984 subject to certain conditions.The Government of India on 17th April 1979, in exercise pf the powers under Section 13 of the Rubber Act, 1947, fixed the minimum price...
Bellary Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Syndicate Bank and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1991
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas692(Kar); ILR1991KAR4494; 1991(3)KarLJ721
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated October 19, November 6, 1987, passed by the learned company judge in Company Petition No. 34 of 1986 and the connected Company Petitions Nos. 13 and 39 of 1987 directing winding up of the appellant company under the provisions of section 433(c), (e) and (f) of the Companies Act. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, there was an interim order of stay passed on December 23, 1987. The interim order was vacated on February 13, 1989. We may also ;point out that maximum time was granted and indulgence was shown to the appellant before vacating the interim order. The appellant even failed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 to the first respondent - bank to show its earnestness as ordered on September 30, 1988, a on joint memo filed by the parties. Various orders passed in between December 23, 1987, and February 13, 1989, bear testimony to the fact that sufficient indulgence was shown to the appellant. 3. The first respondent - ban...
Smt. Kamalabai and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ561
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the petitioners u/S. 439, Cr.P.C. praying for grant of bail to them in Crime No. 18 of 1991 of Hubli Suburban Police Station registered for offences punishable u/Ss. 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short). The petitioners filed a similar petition in the Court of the Special Judge, Dharwar, for their releasing on bail u/S. 439, Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, by his order dated 20-1-1991, rejected the prayer of the petitioners for grant of bail. Thereafter this petition is filed by them. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant visited a house and they found the three petitioners in that house and after searching the house, ganja worth Rs. 1,100/- i.e. 1 Kg 100 grams was found in that house. As the petitioners did not give a satisfactory answer about the...
Mukundlal Manchanda and anr. Vs. Prakash Roadlines Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas830(Kar); 1992(1)KarLJ140
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioners seek rectification of the register of members by annulling shares transfer register pursuant to the resolution of the board of directors of the first respondent company dated March 31, 199.0. The petitioners also seek enforcement of the procedure prescribed in Article 7 of the articles of association of the first respondent-company.2. The shareholders of the first respondent-company belong to a family and are interrelated. The share capital is Rs. 50 lakhs consisting of 50,000 shares valued at Rs. 100 each. The issued share capital is Rs. 30 lakhs. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 has 1,500 shares and the second petitioner has 743 shares. Petitioners Nbs. 1 and 2 and the second respondent are brothers. The fourth respondent is the son of the second respondent. The third respondent is the son of the fifth respondent. The sixth respondent is the Hindu undivided family of which the second respondent is the karta. On March 31, 1990, the board o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›