Karnataka Court April 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.
V. Lakshmipathy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1334; 1991(2)KarLJ453
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. The petitioners, who are the residents of Banashankari Extension I Stage, Block-1, which includes a part of N.R. Colony and Ashokanagar, have embarked on Public Interest Litigation actuated by common cause in defence of public interest. The petitioners are aggrieved by the location and operation of industries and industrial enterprises in a residential area in alleged gross violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The petitioners are questioning industrial activity in residential locality by establishing and running factories, work-shops, factory sheds, manufacture of greases and lubricating oils by distillation process and also production of inflammable products by respondents-17 to 49. According to the petitioners, these questionable activities are being carried on in the area comprising of Sy.Nos. 39/1, 39/2A and 39/2B of Yediyur Nagasandra village, Bangalore. The land situate in Sy.No. 39/1 is called 'Vajapeyam Terrace Garde...
M.S. Syed Anwar and Etc. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1606; 1991(2)KarLJ375
ORDER1. Since common question of law is involved in these petitions, they are clubbed together and a common order is passed.2. The points for consideration in both the petitions are :-1. Whether Police can take steps of taking measurements or photographs of unconvicted persons in the absence of any sanction from the competent authority ? 2. Whether prescription mentioned in the Police Manual can be said has force of law or otherwise ? 3. Whether provisions of Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920 is subservient to the Karnataka Police Act and Police Manual or otherwise ?3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner No. 1 in the first petition in an official employed in Government Bangalore Diary. Petitioner No. 2 is the owner of Lorry and running an Automobile Workshop. Petitioner No. 1 in the second writ petition is a Jr. Telecom Officer which is one of the departments of Union of India. Petitioner No. 2 in the second writ petition is the Silk Merchant of Bangalore C...
Madaiah Vs. State by Yelandur Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ502; 1991(3)KarLJ476
Shyamsundar, J.1. Although on the merits of the appeal the sorted facts involved give rise to same conclusion similar to the one arrived at by the Court below on the convincing evidence led for the prosecution in support of the charge levelled against the appellant of having committed the murder of his own wife right inside his house at Honnur village, at board day light at about 9-30 a.m. resulting in the appellant being sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in S.C. No. 29/88 dated 16-11-88, we find very little reason to depart from the finding of the guilt recorded by the Sessions Judge or with the endeavour made by the prosecution to ram home the charge to the accused. We are nonetheless persuaded by the argument of learned counsel Sri Seshachala who appears herein as Amicus curiae in this matter, who says all said and done accepting the prosecution case at its face value is without any reason to demur whatsoever, even then the offence which the accused could be said to have co...
Dr. Shankar Rao Vs. Gulbarga University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3232; 1991(2)KarLJ112
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. The point for consideration in this Writ Petition is: whether the person appointed as a Chairman of a Faculty can continue till he retires and his appointment can be reviewed and the Syndicate can cancel his appointment. 2. The facts of the case herein are: that earlier, petitioner was a Lecturer in Hindi in the Karnataka Arts College, Dharwar. In the year 1979 was appointed as Reader in Hindi in Gulbarga University. The Gulbarga University by exercising its powers conferred under Section 26(1)(2)(d)(iii) appointed this petitioner as a Chairman of the Post Graduate Studies in Hindi Department. Relevant Section reads as follows:- 'The Chairman shall be appointed by the Syndicate for a specified term provided that the Syndicate shall be competent to vary the term after review from time to time.' As per Clause (iii) of the said Section, it is clear that a Chairman shall be appointed by the Syndicate for a specific term provided that the Syndicate shall be compete...
M/S. Galaxy theatre and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant215
ORDERShivashankar Bhatt, J. 1. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of Ss. 4 and 4A of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short) as unconstitutional. The main attack is founded on Articles 14 and 304(b) of the Constitution.2. All the petitioners are owners of cinema theatres located at various towns and cities in the State of Karnataka.3. Following contentions were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners :I(a) Section 4 of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, since unequals are treated as equals, inasmuch as the Section does not classify the exhibitors with reference to the area, wherein the theatre is located, its population, size and nature of the theatre etc. All kinds of exhibitors, irrespective of their capacity to earn or capacity to entertain, are treated alike. (b) The Table in Section 4 provides for different rates on shows depending upon the highest rate of admission fee in a theatre. Since all theat...
Widia (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: (1991)98CTR(Kar)114; [1992]194ITR77(KAR); [1992]194ITR77(Karn)
K. Shvashankar Bhat, J.1. Under the provisions of the income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the deposits made with the IDBI do not tantamount to payment of income-tax and, therefore, are not deductible for the purpose of computing the chargeable profits ?' 2. The assessment year is 1977-78. The assessee, instead of paying the surcharge on income-tax under the provisions of the Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short), deposited the equivalent amount with prepared under the provision of the Finance Act, 1976. The assessee required this deposit to be treated as payment of surcharge for the purpose of computing the chargeable profits under the provisions of the Surtax Act. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim of the assessee but the Commissioner of Income-tax revised this order the Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the order of the Commissioner. The Appellate Tribunal ...
Galaxy theatre Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2468
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of sections 4 and 4-A of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short) as unconstitutional. The main attack is founded on articles 14 and 304(b) of the Constitution. 2. All the petitioners are owners of cinema theatres located at various towns and cities in the State of Karnataka. 3. Following contentions were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners : I. (a) Section 4 of the Act is violative of article 14 of the Constitution, since unequals are treated as equals, inasmuch as the section does not classify the exhibitors with reference to the area, wherein the theatre is located, its population, size and nature of the theatre, etc. All kinds of exhibitors, irrespective of their capacity to earn or capacity to entertain, are treated alike. (b) The table in section 4 provides for different rates on shows depending upon the highest rate of admission fee in a theatre. Sinc...
S.R.S. Agencies Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: [1991]83STC472(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. These revision petitions are filed purporting to invoke section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with section 8-A of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976. 2. The question arises under the provisions of the Karnataka Entry Tax Act, 1979. The assessee has challenged the orders of the Appellate Tribunal made under section 14 of the said Act. The learned High Court Government Advocate brought to our notice that these revisions are not maintainable since no provision is made under the said Act for filing any revision to this Court against the order made under section 14 of the said Act. 3. Chapter V deals with appeal and revision. Hierarchy of authorities are created for the purpose of the appeals and revisions as per sections 13, 14 and 15 of the said Act. Further under section 16, a provision is made for appeal to this Court against the order made under section 15 by the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner. We do not find any provision i...
State of Karnataka Vs. V. Subramanian
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]84STC230(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The State has come up with these revision petitions in S.T.R.P. Nos. 11 to 14 of 1988. The matter pertains to the interpretation of section 18-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'). The assessee manufactures and sells copper sulphate. Under the Second Schedule to the Act, there are two entries which compete with each other to assess copper sulphate. Entry No. 79 refers to 'chemicals of all kinds' while entry No. 117 refers to 'insecticides and pesticides'. The rate of tax on the sale of chemicals of all kinds is quite higher than the rate of tax applicable to the sale of insecticides and pesticides. 2. The assessee throughout has been contending that the copper sulphate sold by the assessee falls within entry No. 117 while the Revenue has been contending that the subject was covered by entry No. 79. In the year 1963 there was a circular issued by the Commissioner under the Act stating that the copper sulphate was covered by entry No. 7...
The State of Karnataka Vs. Annappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ158; ILR1991KAR3220; 1991(2)KarLJ8
B.P. Singh, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal against the sentence passed by the JMFC at Aland in C.C. No. 298 of 1984, dated 10th October 1986. The State is aggrieved by that part of the order whereby the learned Magistrate has only imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- against each of the respondents by way of punishment for commission of an offence punishable u/S. 4(i) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The State contends that having regard to the provisions of S. 4 of the Act, there was no discretion left in the Court to award only a sentence of fine without imposing the statutorily prescribed minimum substantive sentence. 2. Respondent-2 is the son of respondent-1. The charge against them is that on 5-8-1984 at about 12-30 p.m. at Tadkal village they failed to supply water and tea to C.Ws. 1 to 4 since they were members of Holeya community. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »