Karnataka Court December 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.
Majidkhan Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ907; 1993(1)KarLJ176
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 14/17-8-1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Karwar, Uttar Kannada convicting the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Ss. 366, IPC and 376, IPC and contenting him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under S. 366, IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under S.376, IPC. The facts constituting the case of the prosecution, briefly stated, are as under :- 2. P.W. 5 - Prafulla Kumari is the daughter of P.W. 3 - Prabhakar Parbhu and P.W. 4 - Smt. Geetha. P.W. 3 - Prabhakar Prabhu was working as an Assistant Engineer, Micro-waves at Karwar. During the period from 1982 to July 1986 he was residing in the Staff Quarters allotted to him along with his wife-Geetha, his son - Krishna Prabhu and his daughter Prafulla Kumari. During the relevant period that is t...
M/S Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri R. Khaishiulla Khan an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)KarLJ62
Hiremath, J.1. In both these petitions under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C. the common question is when there is a hire-purchase agreement in respect of a motor vehicle, and when the motor vehicle is seized by the financier in enforcement of the clause in the agreement giving right to the financier to seize the vehicle and on the complaint being filed by the hirer alleging theft of the same and the motor vehicle having been seized by the Police and produced before a criminal Court whether it is the financier or the hirer who is entitled to the interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451, Cr.P.C. 2. Cr.P. No. 110/92 arises out of the order of the Xth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in P.C.R. 157/91 and Cr. No. 563/91. The complainant-respondent-1 ('respondent' hereafter) entered into hire-purchase agreement with the petitioner Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited ('financier' hereafter) in respect of goods vehicle No. CAM 8786 and the petitioner advanced ...
Bhoruka Finance Corporation Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Kar)56; ILR1993KAR344; [1993]202ITR723(KAR); [1993]202ITR723(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ365
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner which is a partnership firm agreed to sell to the fourth respondent the property comprised in No. 7, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs. 12.96 lakhs on July 29, 1987, Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was extended to apply to the Bangalore Metropolitan Region, with effect from October 1, 1987. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 furnished to the appropriate authority a statement in Form No. 37-I on October 30, 1987. The appropriate authority a statement in Form No. 37-I on October 30, 1987. The appropriate authority sent on order dated December 16, 1987, as at annexure 'E', exercising power under section 269UD(1) of the Act purporting to make a pre-emptive purchase for the apparent consideration shown in the agreement with other statutory benefits. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 2 is calling in question the constitutional validity of Chapter XX-C of th...
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Khaishiulla Khan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1069; ILR1993KAR61
ORDERHiremath, J.1. In both these Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the common question is when there is a hire-purchase agreement in respect of a motor vehicle, and when the motor vehicle is seized by the financier in enforcement of the clause in the agreement giving right to the financier to seize the vehicle and on the complaint being filed by the hirer alleging theft of the same and the motor vehicle having been seized by the Police and produced before a criminal Court whether it is the financier or the hirer who is entitled to the interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. 2. Cr.P. No. 110/92 arises out of the order of the Xth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in P.C.R.157/91 and Cr.No. 563/91. The complainant respondent-1 ('respondent' hereafter) entered into hire-purchase agreement with the petitioner Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited ('financier' hereafter) in respect of goods vehicle No. CAM 8786 and the ...
Jeevaraj and Another Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise and O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: [1994]80CompCas478(Kar); 1993(41)ECC348; 1993LC601(Karnataka); 1993(64)ELT374(Kar); 1993(1)KarLJ167
P.K. Shyamsundar, J.1. This is a reference made by our brethren B. P. Singh and K. Jagannatha Shetty JJ. (see Jeevaraj v. Collector of customs and Central Excise [1993] 1 Kar LJ 167) under section 7 of the High Court Act formulating for our consideration the following questions, which read (at page 169) : '(1) Whether having regard to the provisions of sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, failure to comply with the provisions of section 110(2) of the Act would act as bar to the initiation of proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Act, by issuance of a show-cause notice under section 124 thereof; or whether such non-compliance would only result in entitling the person from whom goods are seized, to the returns of those goods without in any way affecting the proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty that may be initiated by issuance of a show-cause notice under section 124 of the Act (2) Wheth...
Jeevaraj Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(64)ELT374(Kar); 1993(1)KarLJ169
Acts/Rules/Orders:Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 110, 110(2), 124 and 124(4); Gold (Control) Act, 1968Cases Referred:AC Cus v. Malhotra, 1973 June Cen-Cus (i) (SC), 1990 (28) ECR 439 (SC), ECR C Cus 790 SC;IJ Rao v. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh, 1989 (24) ECR 1 (SC), ECR C Cus 1503 SC];Chaganlal Gainmull v. CCE & Ors., 1990 (Supp.) Supreme Court Cases 527;Decisions of Karnataka High Court, W.Ps. 8663 to 8665 of 1985 and in Writ Appeal Nos. 370 to 372 of 1991JUDEMENTShyamsundar, J.1. This is a reference made by our brethren B. P. Singh and K. Jagannatha Shetty, JJ, under Section 7 of the High Court Act formulating for our consideration the following questions, which read :(1) 'Whether having regard to the provisions of Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 failure to comply with the provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act would act as a bar to the initiation of proceedings for confiscation and imposition of penalty in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Act, by issuance o...
G. Moorthy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR367; 1993(1)KarLJ376
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J.1. Writ Appeal Nos. 1268 to 1270/1992 are preferred against the order dated 29.6.1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.14735, 14406 and 14656 of 1992 respectively. The learned single Judge has rejected the Writ Petitions. Therefore, the petitioners have come up in Writ Appeals.2. In the Writ Petition (W.P.No. 14735 of 1992) the petitioners-appellants have sought for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents by themselves, their agents, servants or anyone through them to forbear from interfering with the sale or distribution of lottery tickets of the lottery organised by Royal Government of Bhutan in the State of Karnataka; in W.P. 14406/92, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the alleged high-handedness of respondents 4 and 5 therein (Circle Inspector of Police, Chickpet Police Station, Bangalore and the Sub Inspector of Police, Upparpet Police Station Bangalore) in taking away the lottery tickets from the petitioner on the...
Kum. L. Usharani and Others Vs. D.S. Lakshmaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)500; 1993CriLJ982; I(1993)DMC269; ILR1993KAR661; 1993(1)KarLJ130
ORDER1. Though this matter appears for orders, it is taken up for final disposal by consent of both the sides.2. The revision petitioners had filed a petition before J.M.F.C., Sidlaghatta in C.M.C. 46/88 under S. 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure against their father-respondent herein for grant of maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to each of them. The petition so far as petitioners 1 and 2 came to be dismissed. So far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, the learned Magistrate directed payment of separate maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from the date of petition till 30-4-90 on which date 3rd petitioner also attained majority. Being aggrieved by this order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.3. That petitioners 1 and 2 were majors even as on the date on which they filed the petition under S. 125, Cr.P.C. is undisputed. So far as 3rd petitioner is concerned, that she also attained majority on 30-4-90 is also not disputed. The con...
K.R. Balasubramanyan Vs. Bellary Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. and Ano ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1992
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas585(Kar); ILR1993KAR509; 1993(1)KarLJ303
Kedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This company application is filed by one of the shareholders of the respondent-company, under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, which was directed to be liquidated by the order of this court dated October 19, 1987/November 6, 1987, in Company Petition No. 34 of 1986. 2. The brief facts are : The respondent company was wound up under the provisions of section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), since the company was unable to pay the debts to the creditors. This court has observed that the respondent-company has failed to discharge the liability which exceeds Rs. 2.5 crores, exclusive of interest and is unable to pay the debts within the meaning of section 433(e) of the Act. The respondent-company has preferred an appeal against the said order in O.S.A. No. 12 of 1987 (see Bellary Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. Syndicate Bank [1993] 76 Comp Cas 426 (Kar)) which came to be dismissed. 3. During the pen...
Lurdha Swamy Vs. Shanthamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR505; 1993(1)KarLJ331
ORDERHakeem, J.1. This Revision by the landlord is directed against the trial Court's order rejecting his claim for eviction of the respondent on the grounds under Section 21 (1) (a), (d) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act).2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/-, the tenancy month being English calendar month. The respondent occupied the premises in the year 1974 agreeing to vacate the same soon and also to pay the rent regularly. Instead, she had filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking regularisation of her tenancy. The tenancy was accordingly regularised, obviously under Section 31C of the Act. The landlord sought for eviction on the ground that the tenant has failed to pay the rent inspite of demands; that she is guilty of creating nuisance and annoyance to his family members and also to his neighbours; and that the pre...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »