Karnataka Court October 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.
The Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. M/S Cashew Tr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ749; ILR1992KAR3391; 1992(4)KarLJ226
Hiremath, J.1. This appeal could be disposed of on a short point. The Secretary - the complainant, Agricultural Produce Market Committee filed complaint against the respondents for various offences under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) Act of 1966. He admitted in his evidence that the Committee passes resolution and such resolutions passed are implemented by him though he is the Secretary of the Committee. Section 56, Clause (xi) dealing with powers, functions and duties of the Secretary states that he has power to prefer complaints in respect of prosecutions to be launched on behalf of the Market Committee and conduct proceedings civil or criminal on behalf of the Market Committee. Admittedly, in the instant case, no such resolution was passed by the Market Committee either empowering or directing the Secretary to launch prosecution against the accused persons. The said provision makes it amply clear that whatever he does in civil or criminal matters, it is on b...
The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Camp, Belgaum Vs. K. Shamrao and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ901; ILR1993KAR45; 1993(1)KarLJ20
ORDER1. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum has referred certain material published by the respondents in Samyukta Karnataka Kannada daily for taking action for contempt of his Court. The respondents-accused are the Managing Editor, Editor and Printer and Publisher respectively of the said news daily published from Hubli. The items published in the said newspaper dated 16-4-92, 17-4-92 and 18-4-92 are scandalous and intended to interfere with the administration of justice which in turn would have impact on the mind of the litigant public approaching the petitioner for redressal of their grievances. 2. In their objections, inter alia, the respondents contended that the Charity Commissioner or an Assistant Charity Commissioner is not a Court and therefore the petitioner could not have made a reference to this Court to take action for contempt. We deemed it necessary to raise and determine the preliminary point, namely, whether the Assistant Charity Commissioner-petitioner is a 'C...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Faruk Anvar Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: [1993]199ITR433(KAR); [1993]199ITR433(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ16
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. An identical question has been referred to us for consideration which reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that reopening of assessment under section 147(b) was bad in law on the ground that the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax did not constitute information ?'2. The question arises in respect of the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80.3. Earlier, there was an order of assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. Subsequently, in a proceeding under section 263 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax had occasion to consider the assessment made for the year 1980-81. While disposing of the said proceedings pertaining to the assessment year 1980-81, the Commissioner made certain observations regarding the weighted deduction claimed by the assessee under section 35B of the Act. Various i...
Veerabhadrappa Vs. Mayappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR161
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. The Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff before Munsiff, Channagiri in O.S.No. 44/91, a suit filed by him for specific performance of the alleged Agreement to Sell in his favour in respect of the suit property. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC numbered as I.A.IV for grant of temporary injunction against the plaintiff to restrain him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. That was opposed by the plaintiff. The learned Munsiff after considering the merits of the claim put forward by the defendant in the said application held that he had not made out a case for grant of injunction and consequently dismissed the said application. The defendant being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Munsiff preferred Misc. Appeal No. 29/1991 on the file of Civil Judge, Bhadravathi who came to the conclusion that the order of the Munsiff rejec...
R. Rama Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3421; 1992(4)KarLJ266
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. In brief, the facts leading to this Writ Petition are:The petitioner holds an Inter-State stage carriage permit on the route Bangalore to Coimbatore and back to operate with two vehicles during night hours. One of the vehicles - CAM 2962 is of 1981 model. To provide better and uninterrupted service he intended to replace the same in the interest of the travelling public. As such, the petitioner acquired Hindusthan Isuzu Chassi having a wheel base of 199' and has provided a seating capacity of 37+2 having constructed a luxury vehicle on it. The cost of the vehicle is about Rs. 7 lakhs. He applied for registration of the said vehicle to the Registering Authority, Bangalore Central, Bangalore. The said application was rejected stating that Rule 151 (2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short the Rules) prescribes the minimum seating capacity of 48+2. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement Annexure-A as well as questioned the validity of Rul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›