Karnataka Court September 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.
Gundu Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR324; 1991(3)KarLJ81
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the order of the Assistant Commissioner-first respondent herein at Annexure-H. He has sought for quashing the same for the reasons set out in the Writ Petition. He has also sought for a direction to restore the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 21 -8-1-972 and that of the Learned District Judge on 6-3-1974. (Annexure-C and D respectively).2. A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows:3. Sy.No. 17, measuring 10 acre, 3 guntas situated in Allehol Village in Khanapur Taluk, Belgaum District is endowed upon the Village Office, viz., Shet Sanadhi of the said Village. Therefore, the said land is governed by the provisions of the Village Offices Abolition Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and by virtue of Section 4 of the Act; the land stood resumed to the St...
Assistant Commissioner of Entry Tax Vs. Mysore Sales Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3717
Mohan, C.J.1. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether sewing machine could be subject to tax under Entry Tax and brought under Entry 7 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 (Karnataka Act 27/1979) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The learned single Judge while dealing with this issue in series of Writ Petitions by Judgment dated 19-1-1990 considered the scope of this Entry and held that sewing machines do not fit in to the concept of definition of 'Industrial Machinery' under Entry 7, and therefore not exigible to tax under the Act. It is under these circumstances the present Appeals have come to be preferred.3. The contention of the Revenue which is the appellant before us is, if the sewing machines could be used in garment factory undoubtedly it is an industrial machinery and therefore the learned single Judge ought to have had regard for the user. Merely because a sewing ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Printers
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Kar)233; [1992]198ITR601(KAR); [1992]198ITR601(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 64,048 representing penalty levied under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, has to be allowed as deduction in computing the total income in the assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 ?' 2. The assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is also engaged in the business of printing for which purpose it purchased paper, printing inks, machine spare parts, machine oil, by issuing 'C' forms under the Central Sales Tax Act declaring that the said goods were purchased for the purposes of manufacturing or processing of goods for sale as per section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sale Tax Act. However, the assessee used the said goods in the execution of works contract (i.e., pr...
Eranna Vs. Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3940; 1991(3)KarLJ491
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 29-1-1982 passed by the 1st respondent - Land Tribunal, Manvi in No. LRM.DEC/MNV/CKP/8/76-77. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are as under: 3. One Shankarappa, son of Veerabhadrappa, presumably the father of the instant respondent-3 had filed a declaration under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) before the Land Tribunal, Manvi. The Tribunal by its order dated 24-10-1981 declared that the declarant was having 1.7 units as surplus land and that the declarant should surrender the same. It appears that thereafter, the Tribunal issued notice to the said person to intimate the particulars of Sy. Nos. which he proposed to surrender. It is seen that the aforesaid person did not respond to the same, with the result, the Tribunal by its order dated 29-1-1982 decided that an area of 4 acres 10 guntas (1.7 units) towards the easter...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.V. Narasimhan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR499(KAR); [1992]196ITR499(Karn); [1993]66TAXMAN455(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The question referred to us under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), reads thus : 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Appellate Tribunal right in law in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of the Income-tax under section 263 ?' 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax invoked the provisions of section 263 and directed the Income-tax Officer to include in the assessment of the assessee, herein, the income derived by a trust since the assessee's minor son was the sole beneficiary of the trust. The commissioner, for this purpose, invoked the provisions of section 64(1)(iii) of the Act read with Explanation 2A. The assessee contended that as per the trust deed, the income of the trust was to be accumulated and to be handed over to the minor son on his attaining majority and, therefore, section 64(1) was not attracted. The Appellate Tribunal has upheld this contention of the assessee. The assessee had po...
Parameshwarappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1691; 1991(3)KarLJ751
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. The petitioner, in this Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the correctness and legality of the order made by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-A and that of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-B and he has sought for quashing the same for the reasons set out in the Writ Petition.2. A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition, are as follows:The undisputed facts disclosed in the impugned orders as well as the averments in the Writ Petition are that Naga Bhovi, the 4th respondent, was granted 4 acres of land in Sy.No. 45 of Haliyur village, Kasaba hobli, Tarikere taluk, Chickmagalur district, in proceedings No. SSDPCR 37/53-54 under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules by the competent authority by order made on 2nd of November 1953. Accordingly, Saguvali chit came to be issued in his favour on the same day, subject to certain conditions. One such condition was that the grantee shall not alie...
Kolla Bovi Vs. Thimma Bovi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3834; 1991(3)KarLJ502
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging the legality and correctness of the orders, Annexure-D and E, of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, respondent-2 and 3 herein respectively. They have also sought to quash them for the reasons set out in the petition.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-Five acres of land in Sy. No. 16 (gomal land) situated in Annehal village, Chitradurga Taluk, was leased in favour of Thimmabovi, respondent-1 herein, by the Tahsildar under the lease deed, Annexure-A, for a period of five years commencing from 1948-49 subject to certain conditions. It is needless to say that this lease was made under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules made under the Mysore Land Revenue Code then prevailing.It is the case of the petitioners that subsequently respondent-1 obtained an order of confirmation as per Annexure-B confirming the lease made in his favour. That order was made on the recommendation of the Assis...
C.R. Narasimhamurthy and anr. Vs. K. Raro and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC481
M. Rama Jois, J.1. This appeal is presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the Vehicle and the insurer against the judgment and award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a Claim petition presented by the respondents under Section 110-A of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case are: The Claim petition was presented by the wife, two minor children and the mother of one late M. Sheshagiri Rao. According to the claimants, Sheshagiri Rao died in a motor accident caused by Lorry bearing registration No. MYD-3830 which hit the Bajaj Scooter bearing registration No. MES 825 on which the deceased Sheshagirri Rao was riding. The accident took place on 15th April 1986 near Sadashivanagar Police Station Old Tumkur Road, Bangalore. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 8,77,400/-. The first issue for consideration by the Tribunal was as to whether the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing registration No. MED 3830 by...
C.R. Narasimha Murthy and anr. Vs. K. Saroja and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ492; 1991(3)KarLJ30
M. Rama Jois, J.1. This appeal is presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the vehicle and the insurer against the judgment and award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in a claim petition presented by the respondents under Section 110-A of the Act.2. The brief facts of the case are: The claim petition was presented by the wife, two minor children and the mother of one late M. Sheshagiri Rao. According to the claimants, Sheshagiri Rao died in a motor accident caused by lorry bearing registration No. MYD 3830 which hit the Bajaj scooter bearing registration No. MES 825 on which the deceased Sheshagiri Rao was riding. The accident took place on 15th April, 1986 near Sadashivanagar Police Station on Old Tumkur Road, Bangalore. They claimed a compensation of Rs. 8,77,400/-. The first issue for consideration by the Tribunal was as to whether the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. MYD 3830...
Venu Vs. Krishnappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1991
Reported in: [1992]74CompCas734(Kar); 1991(3)KarLJ41
M.M. Mirdhe, J.1. This criminal revision petition is filed under section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order dated December 4, 1990, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, IV Court, Bangalore, in Case No. PCR 290 of 1990.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records of the case. Learned counsel for the respondent has remained absent at the time of hearing of this case.3. The revision petition is admitted.4. With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have heard this matter on merits today.5. The petitioner filed a compliant under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, against the respondent alleging that he has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.6. The Magistrate took cognizance and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and then he dismissed the complaint under section 203. Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the complaint was filed on August 21, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »