Karnataka Court August 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.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore Vs. Muniswamy Reddy Deceased ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant77
1. Both these appeals are by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore for whose benefit the land in question was acquired. There is no dispute that the land was occupied by the Hindustan Air Crafts Limited in the year 1943 and ever since then either the said Hindustan Air Crafts Limited or its successor the present appellant has been in possession continuously. There is also no dispute that the owner-respondent No. 1 was not in possession of any portion of this land and no rent or licence fee was being paid for this occuption. On 4th June, 1981, preliminary notification was published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') proposing to acquire the land for the benefit of H.A.L. In November, 1981 final notification under Section 6 was issued. On 24-3-1982, the Land Acquisition Officer made his award granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per Acre. This was enhanced by the reference Court in LAC No. 207/1982 on 8th August, 1984. The enhanced compen...
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Muniswamy Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3319
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Both these Appeals are by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore for whose benefit the land in question was acquired. There is no dispute that the land was occupied by the Hindustan Air Crafts Limited in the year 1943 and ever since then either the said Hindustan Air Crafts Limited or its successor the present appellant has been in possession continuously. There is also no dispute that the owner-respondent No. 1 was not in possession of any portion of this land and no rent or licence fee was being paid for this occupation. On 4th June, 1981, preliminary notification was published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') proposing to acquire the land for the benefit of H.A.L. In November, 1981 final notification under Section 6 was issued. On 24.3.1982, the Land Acquisition Officer made his award granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per Acre, This was enhanced by the reference Court in LAC No. 207/1982 on 8th August, 198...
Syed Kaleem Vs. M/S Mysore Lakshmi Beedi Works and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)64; 1993CriLJ232; ILR1992KAR2614; 1992(3)KarLJ581
ORDER1. Heard both counsel. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for setting aside the order dated 6-12-1991 passed by the III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore, in C.C. No. 3680-1988, ordering framing of charges against the accused under Section 120-A, 120-B and 420 of IPC. 2. In the Court below, the petitioner is accused No. 2 and 1st respondent is the Complainant Accused No. 1 Syed Khasim having died, is not made a party in this Revision Petition. The facts leading to the filing of this petition briefly stated are as follows : The complainant is said to be the proprietor of Mysore Lakshmi Beedi Works, Maddur, According to him, it is a well established firm enjoying immense reputation and good sales of his beedies. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also said to be traders in beedies at Mandya, carrying on business under different trade names. Having come to know that accused persons were selling their beedies by using the trade mark ...
Madiwalappa Shivappa Badiger Vs. Sri Sukshetra Sri Somanathmath Shivap ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2644; 1992(3)KarLJ563
ORDERVasanthakumar, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 2-4-1992 passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Basawana Bhagewadi, on Interlocutory application No. 1 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Few facts to briefly state are: The plaintiffs filed original suit against the defendants seeking the following reliefs: 'To declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in exclusive possession, use and enjoyment of the suit property of an area of 14 guntas, covered by the Somanatha Samadhi Katta of an area of 10 guntas and samadhi of Shivappa Muthya to an area of 4 guntas in R.S.No. 128/1 (old RS. No. 80) inclusive of the Samadhi Kattas of their other ancestors; or, Alternatively, to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners in exclusive possession, use and enjoyment of the suit property by means of perfection of their title for more than 12 years with the knowledge of the defendants, by means of adver...
Racha Naika Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2930; 1992(3)KarLJ616
ORDERKedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These two Revision Petitions arising out of two orders of the Appellate Authority reversing the common order passed by the Land Tribunal, as such these Petitions are disposed of by a common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the 3rd respondent in both these Revision Petitions viz., CRP 3641/1989 and 3642/1989, is the owner of land in Sy.Nos. 109, 110/1 and. 111/1 totally measuring 3 acres and odd and Sy.No.211 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas of Chandakavadi village and Sy.No. 212 measuring 2 acres 1 gunta and Sy.No. 213 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas, all situated in Kodimole village of Chamarajanagar Taluk, The petitioner filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, claiming occupancy rights as he was cultivating the lands having taken the lands on lease from the father of respondent No. 3 by paying annual rents and obtained such lease from time to time, the last of which was on 11-12-1960. On receipt of notice from the Land Tribunal, the respo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bangalore Arrack Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR25(KAR); [1993]201ITR25(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. This reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), involves the consideration of the following question referred to us : 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Appellate Tribunal right in law in coming to the conclusion that Rs. 5,00,000 paid to Shashidaran is not opposed to public policy and therefore admission as deduction under section 37(1) ?' 2. The question pertains to the assessment year 1982-83. The respondent-assesses claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs stated to have been paid by the assessee to one Shashidaran of Trichur so that Shashidaran's father, Mr. Chattunni Menon, would not compete as a bidder in the auction whereby the Excise Department of the Government of Karnataka was selling the right to vend arrack in certain shops. According to the assessee this sum was paid; and, therefore, a rival bidder was bought over and this was a business expenditure incurred by the assessee. 3. The...
Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration) Vs. Machine Tool Cor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: (1992)108CTR(Kar)110; ILR1992KAR3304; [1993]201ITR101(KAR); [1993]201ITR101(Karn)
1. In this reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in concluding that the revised return is totally in substitution of the original return and that the revised return alone has to be taken into consideration in completing the assessment ? (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was not in error in concluding that the claim for depreciation in the original return is to be ignored when no claim is made in the revised return filed subsequently ? (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was not in error in concluding that the claim for depreciation is a choice left to the assessee and cannot be allowed when not claimed in the revised return ?'2. The assessee is a company carrying on manufacture of grinders. For the assessment years 1973-74 and 1975-76, the assessee filed revised returns where...
J.S.A. Raghava Reddy and ors. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Kar)95
S. Rajendrababu, J.1. This petition is filed calling in question the action initiated by the respondents under Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961. The petitioners contend that, pursuant to a partition of an HUF, the property in question is held by them in definite and separate shares. Since sale of the said property has taken place after partition, the consideration is payable to each one of the members of the erstwhile HUF in their respective shares. If so calculated, the value of the property falls outside Chapter XX-C and s. 269UC cannot be invoked in a case where the consideration received is below Rs. 10 lakhs though the total value of the consideration may be in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs. 2. Learned counsel on both sides refer to the decision in K. V. Kishore vs. Appropriate Authority : [1991]189ITR264(Mad) and submit that the matter be disposed of in terms of the said decision. 3. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, this petition is allowed and the proceed...
Workmen of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2689; 1992(3)KarLJ610; (1993)ILLJ833Kant
1. The workmen of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, represented by their Association, are calling in question the constitutional validity of Section 2(9) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, as amended by Act, 29 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also the notification issued pursuant to the said provision framing a rule by which employees whose wages exceed a limit fell outside the definition of Section 2(9) of the Act.2. Several other writ petitions are also filed on behalf of the workmen by various trade unions seeking for similar relief. Some of the managements, who have been impleaded as respondents, supported the petitioners, while others supported the other respondents. The managements in this and other connected matters are public sector undertakings, both of the State and the Union. All these matters have been heard together and contentions in all the cases are considered in this petition for purposes of convenience.3. The Act provides for certain benef...
Narasegowda Vs. Hmt Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3564
N.D.V. Bhat. J1. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.7.1983 passed by the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore in O.S. No. 8565/1980. The Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff.2. Plaintiff filed the said suit against the defendants praying for a decree to declare that the resolution of the Board of Directors of Defendant-1 Society dated 7.2.1980 cancelling the allotment of the site to the plaintiff as illegal and further to declare that the allotment of the schedule site in favour of the 2nd defendant as illegal, void and inoperative and also to pass a decree for specific performance of the allotment of the schedule site in favour of plaintiff directing defendant-1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the schedule site in favour of the plaintiff and for other reliefs referred to there on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the 1st defendant by its written statement. It ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »