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.
State of Karnataka Vs. Kannika Stores
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1992
Reported in: 1994CriLJ743; ILR1993KAR57
Hiremath, J.1. The complainant-Drugs Inspector prosecuted respondents herein under various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940, the most material among these provisions being Sections 18(a) and 18(c) of the Act. A-1 is the name of the shop whereas A-2 is the Proprietor. A-3 the father of A-2 was present when the Complainant visited the shop. Business was being carried out in this shop at Mysore in provisions & other articles and not in drugs. On 4.4.1982 at about 11.30 AM the complainant is said to have inspected this shop along with two panchas P.Ws-2 & 3 and he found huge stocks of drugs, stocked and exhibited for sale along with other saleable items on the racks. He took samples out of them of Penicillin Eye Ointment, Novalgin & Analgin drugs and not others. He subjected them for chemical analysis and got a report as per Ex.P.17. Copy of the report was sent to the accused within the time prescribed under the Act and thereafter complaint came to filed. PW-2 did not supp...
Bangalore Development Authority Vs. R. Ramachandran
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR116; 1993(1)KarLJ1
N.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. These ten Appeals arise out of ten suits viz., O.S.Nos. 5391/1989, 5373/1989, 2231/1990, 5372/1989, 5390/1989, 5374/1989, 5375/1989, 6678/1989, 5389/1989 and 5371/1989 respectively on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore. The said ten suits were filed by different plaintiffs who are the respective respondents before this Court in these ten Appeals. 2. The appellant - B.D.A. was a party defendant in each of the aforesaid ten suits. The lower Court decreed the suit of each of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction by his common judgment delivered in these suits after clubbing them together. Being aggrieved by the judgment, which has gone against the B.D.A. in each of the said suits, the B.D.A. has preferred these ten Appeals. 3. The facts relevant for the disposal of these Appeals, briefly stated, are as under: Each of the plaintiffs in the aforesaid ten suits filed before the City Civil Court prayed for a decree for permanent injunction. The pi...
Uma S. Godbole Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1134; 1992(2)KarLJ111
ORDERShyamasundar, J. 1. In the light of the pendency of proceedings in HRC.NO. 1432/85 as is evident from the orders of the Court-below, it could not possibly be said the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant and therefore liable for action under Section 10A of the KRC Act. The petitioner is the landlord and admittedly had taken possession of the premises by the order of Court made under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act. On this aspect, there is no dispute. But the Rent Controller takes the stand that the premises being occupied by the nephew of the landlord, whereas the landlord was living elsewhere. Because, merely a nephew of the landlord was staying there, it did not become vacant and he cannot be said to be a person who is an unauthorised occupant, Nephew is next kin of the landlord. It means that the landlord is in jural possession. In the circumstances, the Rent Controller's order is wholly untenable and its affirmation by Deputy Commissioner is again a plain error. Hence, it is I...
Mangalore Municipal Market Welfare Society and Another Vs. the Corpora ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant220
ORDER1. The petitioner in W. P. No. 13575 of 1985 is a society called 'Manga-lore Municipal Market Welfare Society' registered under the Karnataka Societies Act, 1960. It is referred to hereinafter wards as the Society.2. In this writ petition, the prayer sought for is as follows:--'Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :(i) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceedings ahead with the shifting of the fish market from the Nehru Maidan Market to the new fish market wing of the Central Market situated at Market Road, Mangalore, without providing all the 132 stall-holders and 61 dry-fish vendors who are at present carrying on their business in the Nehru Maidan Market, with adequate accommodation and facilities in the new fish market.(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from evicting the stall-holders and dry-fish vendors from their present stalls in the Nehru Maidan Market or in any manner ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S.P. Rajes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1992
Reported in: [1994]81CompCas19(Kar); [1993]202ITR646(KAR); [1993]202ITR646(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The two questions referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the remuneration received by the assessee from M. S. P. Exports P. Ltd. and M. S. P. Species P. Ltd., as managing director of these companies, was assessable under the head 'Income from other sources' and not under the head 'Income from salary' (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deductions claimed in respect of the said income received as remuneration in his capacity as managing director of the said two companies ?' 2. The proceedings arise in respect of the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. To appreciate the problem before us, it is necessary to state the following facts summarised in the statement of the case filed in earlier references Nos. 100 and 101 of 1989. 3. The assessee is an individual. He was the m...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madanlal and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Kar)101; [1993]202ITR360(KAR); [1993]202ITR360(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ416
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of the assessment year 1978-79, the following two question have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short) : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(iii) in respect of (a) certificate charges, (b) freight, and (c) insurance charges incurred by the assessee in respect of its export trade (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in stating that a decision of the Bombay High Court is a binding precedent for this case inasmuch as the regular assessment has been made within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court ?' 2. The assessee was carrying on his business at Bombay and an order of assessment came to be passed by the Income-tax Officer, D-II Ward, Bombay. The assessee appealed. The appeal was considered by the Commissioner o...
G.V. Aswathanarayana Vs. Central Bank of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)KarLJ231; (1993)ILLJ1136Kant
K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated July 29, 1992, passed in Writ Petition No, 22284 of 1991. The learned single Judge has refused to stay the further proceedings in the enquiry and has only observed that the enquiry contemplated may proceed but no action adverse to the interest of the petitioner-appellant shall be taken on the basis of the enquiry report without further orders from this Court. When this appeal came up for admission, we found that the hearing of the appeal would be hearing of the writ petition itself, therefore, we directed by our order dated October 29, 1992, that the Writ Petition No. 22284 of 1991 be posted along with this writ appeal for final disposal. Accordingly, the writ petition has now been posted along with this appeal. We have heard both the sides. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs : '(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, other or direction, declaring Regu...
Karnataka Pawn Brokers' Association (Regd.) and another Vs. State of K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1992
Reported in: [1994]94STC243(Kar)
K.A. Swami, Ag.C.J.1. Writ Appeal Nos. 1710 and 1711 of 1992 are preferred against the order dated July 24, 1992 (Reported as Karnataka Pawn Brokers' Association (Regd.) v. State of Karnataka in [1992] 87 STC 366 (KaNT)., passed in W.P. Nos. 25704 and 25705 of 1991, whereas, Writ Appeal Nos. 1784 to 1788 of 1992 are preferred against the order dated July 24, 1992, passed in W.P. Nos. 25661 to 25665 of 1991. 2. In the first batch of writ petitions, petitioners sought for a declaration that section 3A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short) is unconstitutional. They have also sought for quashing the clarificatory circular No. CLR. Cr. 402 of 1991-92 dated October 30, 1991, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes produced as annexure D in the writ petitions. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction forbearing the respondents, their supporters, servants, agents, etc., from demanding the registration of licensed pawnbrokers as 'deale...
Mangalore Municipal Market Welfare Society Vs. Corporation of the City ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR86; 1993(1)KarLJ84
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. The petitioner in W.P.No. 13575 of 1985 is a Society called 'Mangalore Municipal Market Welfare Society' registered under the Karnataka Societies Act, 1960. It is referred to here in after wards as the Society. 2. In this Writ Petition, the prayer sought for is as follows:- 'Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (i) Issue a Writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from proceeding ahead with the shifting of the fish market from the Nehru Maidan Market to the new fish market wing of the Central Market situated at Market Road, Mangalore, without providing all the 132 stall-holders and 61 dry-fish vendors who are at present carrying on their business in the Nehru Maidan Market, with adequate accommodation and facilities in the new fish market. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from evicting the stall-holders and dry-fish vendors from their present stalls in the Nehru Maidan Mar...
G.V. Aswathanarayana Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR19
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 29th July 1992 passed in Writ Petition No. 22284 of 1991. The learned single Judge has refused to stay the further proceedings in the enquiry and has only observed that the enquiry contemplated may proceed but no action adverse to the interest of the petitioner-appellant shall be taken on the basis of the enquiry report without further orders from this Court. When this Appeal came up for admission, we found that the hearing of the Appeal would be hearing of the Writ Petition itself, therefore we directed by our Order dated 29th October 1992 that the Writ Petition No. 22284 of 1991 be posted along with this Writ Appeal for final disposal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition has now been posted along with this Appeal. We have heard both the sides. 2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: '(a) ISSUE a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring Regulat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »