Karnataka Court January 1992 Judgments
State of Karnataka Vs. L.N. Chakrapani and Etc. Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1316; ILR1992KAR2725; 1992(4)KarLJ240
Shyamsundar, J.1. The above petitions have been referred for disposal by a Division Bench by our brother R. Ramakrishna, J., under an order of reference made on the 18th March, 1991. The learned Judge after noticing that there was a marked conflict or divergence of views between two decisions of views between two decision of this Court both by two learned single Judges bearing on a point that had also arisen before him. His Lordship therefore felt the contending views in the two earlier decisions be taken note of by a Division Bench, the differences resolved and a conclusive opinion recorded in the matter. Therefore, acting under S. 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1964 the learned Judge made the reference as aforesaid. That is how these revision petitions came up for consideration and disposed by us. 2. But we notice along side that in a number of other criminal revision-petitions in which the point which we are required to consider in these petitions has also arisen. The Registry o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramkumar Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR160(KAR); [1992]197ITR160(Karn)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue. The assessments years with which we are concerned are the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. The question that is referred to us reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the assessee is not liable to be assessed to tax in respect of the lease rent of Rs. 6,000 attributable to the sites agreed to be sold ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts are thus : The assessee is a private limited company. It owned sites Nos. 725 to 736 and 1049 in Block No. 4, Rajajinagar Extension, Bangalore-10. It had leased the said sites under an agreement dated February 23, 1974, to Yadalam Brothers Private Limited. Thereafter, with the consent of said lessee, the assessee entered into an agreement to sell some of the said sites, whic...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. E.S.i. Corpn.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR150]; ILR1992KAR1635; 1992(2)KarLJ638; (1993)ILLJ1072Kant
Venkatachala, J.1. This appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (for short 'the ESI Act') is filed by M/s. Krishna Spinning and Weaving Mills (P) Ltd., the employer, against an order dated November 9, 1982 made on its ESI Application No. 27/1980 by the Employees Insurance Court at Bangalore (for short 'the Insurance Court'), dismissing that application.2. An Inspector of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation at Bangalore (for short 'the ESI Corporation'), who visited the Mills of the employer and examined its account books on June 2/5, 1978, found debit entries made in those account books respecting Rs. 86,636-04 Ps., for the year April 1977 to April 1978 under the heading 'factory wages, D.A. Account, factory establishment account and Office establishment'. Having regard to the said debit entry found in the account books of the employer by the Inspector, the ESI Corporation felt that the amount in the entry must be wages of the employees of the employer i...
Tag this Judgment!The Govt. of Karnataka and Another Vs. Paramanna and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Kant237; ILR1992KAR739
ORDERSwami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1991 passed by the Civil Judge, Raichur in O.S. No. 145/89.2. The suit was filed by the respondents for a declaration that they are the owners of the suit land and for a permanent injunction. They also sought for a declaration that the order passed by the Tahsildar was null and void and ineffective. The subject matter of the suit was valued at Rs. 55,000/-.3. The office has raised an objection that as the subject matter of the suit was valued at less than Rs. one lakh; that as on the date, the suit was decided, the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 was amended by the Karnataka Act No. 13/1989 with effect from 17th April,1989, the appeal would lie to the District Court and not to the High Court.4. The Karnataka Act No. 13/1989 came into force on 17-4-1989. It amended certain provisions contained in the Karnataka Civil-Courts Act, 1964 and Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964. In this case we are ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Thimmanaika
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)661; ILR1992KAR667; 1992(2)KarLJ363
Hiremath, J.1. The accused-respondent was charge sheeted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Srirangapatna under Sections 279, 337 & 304A I.P.C. It was alleged against him that on 13-2-1987 at about 6.30 AM on Mysore-K.R. Sagar road, he was driving the lorry bearing No. CMS 4617 in a rash, and negligent manner and hit a bullock cart coming on the left side of the road and as a result the cart was completely damaged, two bullocks which were drawing the card died-due to the injuries sustained by them, two other bullocks which were tied behind were also injured and one B.K. Ramegowda who was also badly injured died later in K.R. Hospital, Mysore. Thus this was a case involving more offences than one from rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. After the accused was released on bail and case set down for hearing the proceedings show that the case which was to be taken in its usual course on 18-1-1988 was advanced to 5-1-1988 on the request made by the accused-respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tahseem Banu Vs. the Union of India and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3431; ILR1992KAR859; 1992(2)KarLJ44
Venkatachala, J.1. Detention Order dated 22-10-1990 made under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short, COFEPOSA Act), detaining Sri Abdul Mateen Kazia, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A in this writ petition, has been impugned by his wife Smt. Tahseem Banu by filing this writ petition. 2. Material facts for deciding this writ petition briefly stated are : Detention Order dated 22-10-1990 (Annexure-A) made by the Joint Secretary to Government of India, detaining Abdul Mateen Kazia - husband of the writ petitioner under S. 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of foreign exchange, was served on the detenu on 23-5-1991 and he was consequently detained in the Central Prison, Bangalore. Detenu made a representation respecting detention order to the detaining authorities on 23-5-1991 seeking annulment of the detention order on the grounds urged in the r...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Jatti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)321; 1992CriLJ3835; ILR1993KAR987; 1992(2)KarLJ505
1. This appeal by the State arises out of and is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Karwar in S.C. No. 19/1989. The learned Sessions Judge, by an order made in that case on the 7th day of November, 1989, acquitted the accused of the offence levelled against him, acting under S. 334 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), extending to him the benefit of the exception contained in S. 84 of the Indian Penal code ('IPC' for short), but directed the accused to be detained in safe custody until the wife of the accused examined in the case as P.W. 1 arrived before Court to take charge of the accused as ordered therein. We are told that the wife did appear before Court and took charge of her husband on 13-11-89 after executing a bond assuring the safe conduct of the accused. The State considers the acquittal of the accused to be somewhat unmerited and not merely that, it takes exception to the procedure adopted by the learned Judge in endeavouring to ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. Court of Small Causes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR663; 1992(2)KarLJ42
ORDERKedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, dated 29th August 1991 in Execution Case No. 4960 of 1991 upholding the office objections.2. The facts in brief are:-The petitioner is the decree holder. He filed an execution petition against the respondent-judgment-debtor. In the execution petition, he has claimed the Advocate's fee on the basis of the value of the claim in the petition. The office has raised an objection to the effect that the decree-holder is entitled to Rs. 3/- for cost of decree copy and Rs. 13-37 as Advocate's fee i.e., 50 per cent of the Advocate's fee granted on the value of the decree which is entitled to claim in the execution petition. The Counsel appearing for the execution petitioner filed objections contending therein that the Advocate's fee is to be fixed on the total value of the claim in the execution petition as per Rule 100(d)(i) read with Rule 100(1)...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Laxminarayana Madyastha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1992
Reported in: 2(1993)ACC715
Shivappa, J.1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, III Court, Mangalore convicted the accused and sentenced him for an offence under Section 12(1)(a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Taxation) Act (the Act in short) for non-payment of tax for certain periods. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, three separate appeals were preferred. The learned Sessions Judge passed a common order setting aside the conviction and sentence. It is this order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge that is under challenge in these appeals.2. The short question that arises in these appeals is:Whether the accused person is liable to pay tax for the period mentioned in all these three cases? 3. The learned Magistrate took the view in para-6 of his order that the accused has paid tax on 11.4.1979. Therefore, it is sufficient to hold that the accused was in actual possession of the vehicle. It is here the learned Magistrate has gone wrong. It is not the possession tha...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Channakeshawa Medicals
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3004
Hiremath, J.1. The State has come up in Appeal challenging the Judgment of the Court of the J.M.F.C., Hassan acquitting the accused of the offence under Sections 27 and 18(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Drugs Inspector filed a complaint before the trial Court for these offences alleging that on 12.1.81 when he inspected A-1 - the firm he found that the drugs stated in the complaint were stocked and exhibited for sale and out of them we are now concerned only with M.Os 2 and 3 which are the two misbranded strips. On that day he gave notice to the accused persons not to sell them and on 15.1.81 he seized the material objects - Items 2 and 3 out of the list given in the complaint. They related to Hypnotic - 5 capsules. The accused No. 1 is a pharmacy doing business in drugs at Belur and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are partners of the firm and described as 'qualified persons' in the licence. The trial Court on the evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that they were not proved...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »