Karnataka Court August 1991 Judgments

State of Karnataka Vs. B.S. Vijaya Murthy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1992CriLJ1670

ORDER1. Cases lodged by the Pavagada Police before the Munsiff & J.M.F.C., Pavagada, came to be registered as C.C. Nos. 185 of 1986, 183 of 1986 and 184 of 1986 against the respondent for the offences punishable under Ss. 408, 477A and 201, I.P.C. 2. After filing the charge-sheets, summons were issued to the respondent accused returnable by 23-6-1986 on which day the respondent/accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and was released on bail. It was made out that there was a delay of 5 years 2 months and 25 days in filing the complaints. As the question of limitation was pointed out before the learned Magistrate, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the complaints submitted were well within time. Moreover, the complaints were lodged for the offences punishable under Ss. 408, 477A and 201, I.P.C. and the limitation prescribed under S. 468, Cr.P.C. has no application on the cases. He also contended that the offences alleged were continuous offences. In support of his conte...

Jivaji @ Balasaheb Venkatesh Anikhindi Vs. Sadashiva Rao Ramachandra R ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR4307; 1991(4)KarLJ51

K.A. Swami, J. 1. These three Revision Petitions are preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 247-1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Bijapur, in Rent Revision No. 35/1985; 36/1985 and 42/1985 by the petitioners therein respectively. The aforesaid RentRevision Petitions were preferred against the order dated 24th July 1985 passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Jamkhandi, in H.R.C.No. 6/1981. 2. C.R.P.No. 1395/1987 is filed by the tenant Jivaji @ Balasaheb Venkatesh Anikhindi; C.R.P.No. 1354/1982 is filed by the sub-tenant Basappa Ramappa Mali and C.R.P.No. 2993/1990 is filed by the landlords. In this order, the petitioners in C.R.P.No. 2993/1990 will be referred to as the 'landlords' and the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1395/1987 will be referred to as the Tenant' and the petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1354/1987 will be referred to as the 'sub-tenant'. 3. The Schedule Premises are Extension Plot Nos.9 and 10 of Jamkhandi in Bijapur District. They...

Chikkathimmegowda Vs. Deputy Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR3238; 1992(1)KarLJ229

ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. Heard Sri M, Shivappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-A, I.A. No. l filed before the Deputy Commissioner for granting stay and the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure- C. 2. Sri M. Siddagangaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, on the direction of the Court, has taken notice for respondents 1 and 2. I heard him also. 3. The matter arises this way: Two acres of land in Sy. No. 243 situated in Maraninganahalli village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, was granted in favour of Yalavaiah, father of respondent-3 Gooli @ Mollaiah, under the Land Grant Rules subject to certain condition regarding alienation. After the death of the grantee, his wife sold 30 guntas out of it by two registered sale deeds in favour of the petitioner and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of that extent of land. After coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Sched...

Sakamma Vs. T. Hanumathaiah

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR4524; 1991(4)KarLJ280

K.A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 5th December 1986 passed by the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City in H.R.C. No. 760/1984.2. The petitioner herein is the tenant of the premises which is the rear portion of the House bearing No. 309, Servant Colony, Gavipuram, Bangalore-19. The respondent/landlord sought for eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the grounds falling under Section 21(1)(a) & (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the respondent/landlord the monthly rent of the premises is Rs. 120/-.3. The trial Court rejected the ground pleaded under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. However, it allowed the ground pleaded under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act and passed an order of eviction. Hence, the tenant has come up in this Revision Petition.4. It appears to me that it is not necessary to examine this case on merits. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the tri...

Medical Relief Society of South Canara Vs. Mrs. Shivmala Prithviraj Ur ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR3910; 1992(1)KarLJ411

ORDERRamachandriah, J. 1. The short but interesting point that falls for determination in these three connected Revision Petitions filed by the tenants under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is: 'Whether the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked by the landlord of a premises leased in perpetuity or for a fixed term with a clause enabling the tenant to renew the lease?' It has arisen in this way: FACTS C.R.P. No. 5905/1990: 2. Respondents are the owners of a premises known as 'Melville House' bearing No. 59, situate in Palace Road, Bangalore having an area of 55,750 sq. feet (for short 'the premises') which originally belonged to one Rajkumar Prithviraj Urs. Respondents as his heirs granted a lease of the premises to the petitioner-Society (for short 'the tenant') on perpetual lease under a registered deed dated 11-2-1974 subject to payment of rent of Rs. 2,570/- per month. The Society is accordingly in possession of the premises on payment o...

M. Mohan Shet and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1992CriLJ1403; ILR1991KAR4347

ORDER1. This application is filed under section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking transfer of the complaint filed by the second respondent herein before the J.M.F.C. Bhatkal, North Kanara District, to any other Magistrate Court of either Shimoga District or Bangalore District. A few facts and circumstances which led the petitioners to approach this Court under section 407, Cr.P.C. are as follows :2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the residents of Bangalore city. Respondent-2 file a private complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C., before the J.M.F.C. Bhatkal against these petitioners for an offence punishable under section 500, I.P.C. alleging that the petitioners have made a defamatory statement by publishing an article in a newspaper called 'Daivajna Vani' which relates to the affairs of religious trust, namely, 'Daivajna Brahmin Guru Peetha Samathapana Trust, Bangalore'. On the allegations made in the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatkal, too...

Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1992KAR1117; [1992]198ITR543(KAR); [1992]198ITR543(Karn)

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. A Division Bench of this court referred this case to the Special Bench, after doubting the correctness of the decision of an earlier Division Bench; the said earlier decision is in S. Natarajan v. CIT : [1964]52ITR882(KAR) .2. Two question were referred by the Appellate Tribunal to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which read as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the return filed by the assessee on May 13, 1980, before the normal date of limitation for assessment for the year 1978-79 could be deemed to be a return under section 139(4) despite the fact that a notice under section 148 had been issued by the Income-tax Officer on November 27, 1979 ? 2. If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward of loss declared in a return filed in response to a notice under section 148 ?'3. All the relevant facts are found in the order of the Division ...

Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Mysore Vs. Belur Enterprises

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1995(75)ELT224(Kar); ILR1991KAR3215; 1992(1)KarLJ292

ORDERS. Mohan, C.J. 1. This writ appeal raises an interesting question which will be apparent from the following narration. The respondent M/s. Belur Enterprises is a manufacturer of Sodium Alginate. With effect from 28-2-1982, this product was brought to excise duty under Tariff Item 68 of Schedule I to the central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent manufactured 4,151 Kgs. Sodium Alginate. At the time of manufacturing no duty of excise was liable to be paid since it was exempted from duty by Notification No. 105 of 1980. This was prior to the budget of that year. Thereafter it was changed to Tariff Item 15A(1) and as a result it became liable for excise duty. At the relevant period, viz., when the stocks were cleared, from 7-7-1982 to 10-11-1982, it was subjected to duty under Tariff Item 15A(1) and the respondent has to pay excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1,23,048.81 p. Thereafter two applications were filed by him on 22-6-1983 and 23-6-1...

Union of India Vs. Belur Enterprises

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1994LC468(Karnataka); 1992(58)ELT61(Kar)

ORDER1. This writ appeal raises an interesting question which will be apparent from the following narration. The respondent M/s. Belur Enterprises is a manufacturer of Sodium Alginate. With effect from 28-2-1982, this product was brought to excise duty under Tariff Item 68 of Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent manufactured 4151 Kgs. of Sodium Alginate. At the time of manufacturing, no duty of excise was liable to be paid since it was exempted from duty by Notification No. 105 of 1980. This was prior to the budget of that year. Thereafter it was changed to Tariff Item 15A(1) and as a result it became liable for excise duty. At the relevant period, viz., when the stocks were cleared, from 7-7-1982 to 10-11-1982, it was subjected to duty under Tariff Item 15A(1) and the respondent has to pay excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1,23,048-81P. Thereafter two applications were filed by him on 22-6-1983 and 23-6-1983 claiming ...

Pakirappa Vs. Basavanagouda Bharamanagouda Goudara and Others

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under S. 397, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 11-6-1990 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Byadgi, in P.C. No. 22 of 1990. 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 facts of the case leading to this Revision Petition are as follows :- That the complainant along with the other accused in the case went to Byadgi Police Station on 29-5-1990 and requested the petitioner to release them on anticipatory bail as per the orders of the Sessions Court, Dharwar. But the petitioner did not accept the order of the Sessions Court on the ground that he was under orders of transfer. Accused-6 filed an affidavit. The Court below treated that affidavit as private complaint under S. 2(d) of Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the offence and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and ordered for the issue of process against the petitioner for the off...