Karnataka Court January 1992 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.
Smt. Jacintha Kamath Vs. K. Padmanabha Kamath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Kant372; I(1992)DMC574; ILR1992KAR1233; 1992(2)KarLJ286
1. This appeal under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to be hereinafter referred to as 'the HM Act', is preferred against the order dt. 29-11-1991 made by the Court of Civil Judge at Udupi, to be hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', dismissing a petition under S. 13 of the HM Act seeking dissolution of a Christian marriage by a decree of divorce, as unmaintainable.2. The appellant and the respondent here were respectively the petitioner and the respondent in the petition before the trial Court. The marriage of the petitioner, who was a Christian, and the respondenl, who was a Hindu, was solemnised on 17-3-1977 at St. Lawrence Church, Moodubelle, by the Paris Priest of that Church by adoption of Christian form of marriage. When the Christian wife of the said marriage, which was evidenced by the Certificate of Marriage dt. 7-7-1991 issued by the Paris Priest of the above Church, presented before the trial Court a petition under S. 13(1) of the HM Act against her Hindu husb...
Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex., Davanagere Vs. Southern Asbestos Cement Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: 1995(75)ELT227(Kar); ILR1992KAR595; 1992(2)KarLJ25
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. The order under appeal directs the Central Government (3rd appellant) to refund to the respondent (the writ petitioner) the excess duty paid by the latter under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for the full period of three years and not only for the limited period of six months prior to the date of the refund application. 2. On behalf of the appellants, two contentions are raised. The first is based upon the Explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act and the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court, Union of India v. Alembic Glass Industries, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 193 (Kar.) which deals with it. The judgment was delivered subsequent to the order under appeal. There is no dispute, and there cannot be, that the law laid down by the Full Bench must govern the refund to be made, so that the first appellant (the Assistant Collector of Central Excise) must take this judgment into account in determining what the amount of the refund due to the writ petitioner is. 3. ...
Union of India Vs. Southern Asbestos Cement Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1992
Reported in: 1992(60)ELT185(Kar)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The order under appeal directs the Central Government (the 3rd appellant) to refund to the respondent (the writ petitioner) the excess duty paid by the latter under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for the full period of three years and not only for the limited period of six months prior to the date of the refund application.2. On behalf of the appellants, two contentions are raised. The first is based upon the Explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act and the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court (Union of India v. Alembic Glass Industries, : 1992(61)ELT193(Kar) ) which deals with it. The judgment was delivered subsequent to the order under appeal. There is no dispute, and there cannot be, that the law laid down by the Full Bench must govern the refund to be made, so that the first appellant - (the Assistant Collector of Central Excise) must take this judgment into account in determining - what the amount of the refund due to the writ petitioner is.3....
State of Karnataka Vs. Laxman Yamanappa Dalawai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2833; ILR1992KAR747; 1992(2)KarLJ57
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. When the State appeal under S. 377, Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence imposed on the respondent-accused was taken up for hearing, it was brought to our notice that the respondent had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 74/85 before the Sessions Court at Bijapur against his conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting him for the offence under S. 408, I.P.C. and sentencing him to R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The contention of the State is that in view of the gravity of the offence and amount involved, the respondent deserves enhanced punishment. When this appeal was pending before this Court, Criminal Appeal No. 74/85 came to be disposed of by the Sessions Court on 26-10-1991 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. The learned Amicus Curiae representing the respondent urged that the procedure adopted by the Sessions Court after the case was committed to it under S. 347 of the Code o...
B.V. Aswathiah and Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR108(KAR); [1992]198ITR108(Karn)
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. This reference is under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. The question that is referred to us is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the central excise duty refund received by the assessee during the relevant previous year was taxable in the hands of the assessee ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1979-80. The assessee received a central excise duty refund of Rs. 1,96,958 on September 18, 1978. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner brought this amount to tax and, by his order dated March 5, 1982, he stated that this amount of refund was not paid to the customers even as, on that day up to March 5, 1982, there was no agreement to make such refund and this amount was not shown in the books or the profit and loss account as well. The assessee contended that this amount of excise duty refund not b...
J.P. Sinha Vs. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR663]; ILR1992KAR538; 1992(2)KarLJ15; (1992)IILLJ543Kant
1. The short facts leading to this writ petition are : The petitioner was appointed in the service of the respondent initially in 1971, and in 1981 he was designated as Administrative Manager of the respondent at Bangalore. He served the respondent company sincerely. He was a straightforward and upright officer, which naturally created many enemies for him. On March 29, 1976, one Mr. Ramchandra entered the petitioner's house in the I. T.I. Colony, seeking to meet him claiming to have been sent by the President of the Co-operative Society of the I.T.I. The petitioner sent word to him that he should see him only in the office. However, the said Ramchandra insisted to see the petitioner. The petitioner came out and told him that he should not meet in his house and advised him to see in the office, if still desired. But, to the surprise of the petitioner, the said Ramchandra suddenly took out a bundle of currency notes and placed it on the teapoy. This annoyed the petitioner and he shouted...
P.J. Thomas Vs. Narayanaswami Palani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR561; 1992(2)KarLJ27
ORDERR.V. Vasanthakumar, J.1. Both the Counsel appearing for the parties consent that the matter be heard on merits and hence the C.R.P. is heard on merits.2. The main ground in the Revision Petition is in spite of the objections taken regarding Judgment debtor having no means to pay the decretal amount the trial Court has observed that: the Court can order the arrest of the Judgment Debtor without any enquiry as to means and without recording any reason in writing, but after the debtor is brought under arrest the inquiry as to means must be held. The argument of the learned Counsel is that no order for arrest can be made without first recording a finding on the question of means of Judgment Debtor.3. Now in this case, it has to be made very clear that the Judgment Debtor at every stage of the execution proceedings is trying to object the executability of the decree. Certain few facts are necessary to appreciate the-stand taken by the Judgment Debtor.4. The Judgment Debtor has suffered...
Ananda Rao Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1786; 1992(2)KarLJ97
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. This Petition is directed against the order dated 1.1.1991 passed by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar in C.C.No. 1182/89 and the order dated 9.7.1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga in Cr.R.P.No:5/91.2. By the order dated 1.1.1991, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ('JMFC' for short), directed the issue of bailable warrants to charge sheet witnesses 1 to 3. By the order dated 7.1.1991, the learned JMFC directed the issue of non-bailable warrants to charge sheet witnesses 1 to 3. When these two orders were challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimoga in the aforesaid Criminal Revision Petition, the Sessions Judge passed the order referred to hereinabove, dismissing the application on the count that the order in question would amount to Interlocutory Order and that therefore, is not revisable having regard to provisions of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Thus, these orders are challenged before this Court.3. I have heard Sri. Rudreg...
Sri M.R.K. Rau and Others Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Kant411; ILR1992KAR1107; 1992(2)KarLJ283
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28-3-1990 passed by the learned XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 1869/1985.2. The appeal is admitted. The records are received. The respondent is represented through a counsel. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, production of paper books is dispensed with and it is heard for final disposal.3. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant.4. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction and also for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant -- Corporation -- to deviate the road running across and through the suit schedule property.5. The trial Court has dismissed the suit. It has refused permanent injunction on the ground that prior to the date of filing of the suit, the encroachment had taken place and as such the plaintiffs were not in possession on the date of the suit. Mandatory injunction has been refused on the ground that the road for public purpose is fo...
Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1992
Reported in: (1993)109CTR(Kar)297; [1992]197ITR18(KAR); [1992]197ITR18(Karn)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1978-79. The question that we are required to answer reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, technical documentation by way of drawings and designs which constitute plant was entitled to extra shift allowance in accordance with a circular of the CBDT directing computation of extra shift allowance on the basis of the working of the concern as such without reference to the working of individual machinery ?' 2. The assessee, in computing its income of the previous year ended March 31, 1978, corresponding to the assessment year 1978-79, took into account a sum of Rs. 3,97,573, being extra shift allowance on capitalised documentation fees. It was the assessee's contention that these drawings and designs were required to be consulted at every stage of the multiple wo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »