Karnataka Court September 1992 Judgments
S. Sumitra Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3049; 1992(4)KarLJ360
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. The petitioner in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has challenged the orders made by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Tumkur, as per Annexure-G and the Land Tribunal, Tumkur, as per Annexure-H and she has sought for quashing the same for the reasons set out in the Writ Petition.2. The undisputed facts as disclosed in the pleadings are as follows:-3 acres 13 guntas of land in Sy. No. 192 situated in Tumkur Amanikere, Tumkur Taluk and District, was originally owned by one Smt. Lakshmidevamma, the great grand mother of the petitioner herein. According to the geneology at Annexure-A, the petitioner Sumitra is the daughter of T.K.Siddanarasaiah, grand son of Lakshminaranappa whose elder brother's son Karigiraiah's wife is Lakshmidevamma, the donor. Thus, the petitioner is the descendant of the said Laxmidevamma. Laxmidevamma had intended to gift the land in favour of Sri Laxminarasimhaswamy Devaru, the Temple of...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Hegde Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant54; 1992(4)KarLJ324
ORDER1. Briefly stated the facts leading to the writ petition are: The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Basavanagudi Constituency, Bangalore City on 27th Nov, 1989. He was offered the post of Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission in the rank of Cabinet Minister. Since he was aware that acceptance of an 'office of profit' under the Government of India would be a disqualification for being a Member of the Legislative Assembly, he was not inclined to accept the offer. Accordingly, he conveyed his views to Government of India. When consulted the Law Ministry advised the Government of India that in view of the provisions of Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') there would be no bar on the petitioner holding the post of the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission and to continue as Member in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly so long as he does not receive any remuneration other than the co...
Tag this Judgment!Synchron Machine Tools P. Ltd. and Others Vs. U.M. Suresh Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas868(Kar); ILR1992KAR3329; 1992(4)KarLJ490
K.A. Swami, J.1. This petition is filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the following reliefs : '1. declare that the transfer of 25 equity shares held by Sri B. K. P. Rao (fourth respondent) in favour of his wife, Smt. B. K. Anupama Rao (third respondent), is invalid and illegal and direct that out of the said 25 shares originally held by Sri B. K. P. Rao, 12 shares be transferred to the petitioner; 2. quash the proceedings of the extraordinary general meeting of the members of the company held on November 12, 1987, and annual the resolution passed at the extraordinary general meeting of the company on November 12, 1987, declining to appoint the petitioner as director and direct that the petitioner shall continue as a wholetime director of the company with all such powers as originally conferred upon him and that he is entitled to draw remuneration as such; 3. direct amendment of the articles of association of the comp...
Tag this Judgment!T. Narayanaswamy Vs. State and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)80; 1993CriLJ3109; 1992(4)KarLJ459
ORDER1. This Cr.P.R. is filled by the petitioner who is an accused in the trail Court under S. 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 28-12-89 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Shimoga in Cr.R.P. No. 29/89 setting aside the order dated 14-11-88 passed by the II Additional Munsiff and J.M.F.C., II Court, Shimoga in C.C. No. 5123/88. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for R. 1 and the learned counsel for R. 2. 3. The petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No. 2 alleging that he has committed an offence punishable under S. 379, I.P.C. by committing the theft of his Autorickshaw. The complaint was referred to Scote Police Station, Shimoga under S. 156(3), Cr.P.C. The police investigated into the case and filed 'B' report to the effect that the complaint of the complainant is false. The petitioner challenged the 'B' report filed by the police. The trail Court took cognizance of the offence and sworn statements o...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Sannaramegowda Vs. University of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR454
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. The Question of Law involved in all these Petitions are common. As such all the Petitions are clubbed together and a common Order is passed.2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these Petitions are as follows:The petitioners in all these Petitions either were or are working as Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians or Librarians in the University of Mysore, Mysore, (hereinafter referred to as the University). The University apart from other subjects is also imparting education in Library Science under the auspices of Department of Library Science which has got Professors, Readers and Lecturers. The University has also got a Library Section and its staff consists of Library Assistants, Assistant Librarians, Deputy Librarians and Librarian. The Librarian is the Head of the Section.Petitioners are all officers of Library Section. As on the date of filing the petitions the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 12349 of 1984 and 6968 of 1988 were working as Deputy Lib...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Hegde Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3028
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Briefly stated the facts leading to the Writ Petition are:The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Basavanagudi Constituency, Bangalore City on 27th November, 1989. He was offered the post of Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission in the rank of a Cabinet Minister. Since he was aware that acceptance of an 'office of profit' under the Government of India would be a disqualification for being a Member of the Legislative Assembly, he was not inclined to accept the offer. Accordingly, he conveyed his views to Government of India. When consulted the Law Ministry advised the Government of India that in view of the provisions of Karnataka Legislature (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') there would be no bar on the petitioner holding the post of the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission and to continue as Member in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly so long as he does not receive any remune...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Mahabaleswara Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1992
Reported in: [1993]78CompCas537(Kar)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. It is calling in question the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976, in so far as it levies tax on companies. 2. Under the Act, tax on professions, trades, callings and employment is levied at the rates specified in the Schedule to the Act. The Schedule to the Act at serial number 19 refers to companies registered under the Companies Act and engaged in any profession, trade or calling and the rate of tax is Rs. 2,500. The petitioner calls in question the validity of this legislation in so far as it taxes companies on the following grounds : (i) That there is no legislative competence to levy tax inasmuch as, under entry 43 of List I to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the incorporation, regulation and winding up of trading corporations, etc., is with the Union Legislature and entry 85 thereof provides for corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Subramani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR347(KAR); [1993]202ITR347(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961. He filed applications as contemplated under section 273A of the Act on May 14, 1990, and May 1, 1990, seeking reduction or waiver of interest leviable under sections 139(8), 215 and 217 of the Act. All the applications were taken together for consideration by the Commissioner and he, by a common order dated March 8, 1981, disposed of the applications. For the year 1985-86, the Commissioner found that the assessee satisfied the conditions and, therefore, granted waiver of interest as enumerated therein. Thereafter, for the year 1986-87, the Commissioner took the view that only the first disclosure is eligible for waiver and those applications were not considered. Obviously, this latter part of the order relating to 1986-87 was made on the basis of sub-section (3) of section 273A of the Act. The said sub-section reads as follows :'273A. (3) Where an order has been made under sub-section (1) in favour of ...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1992
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)382; ILR1993KAR768; 1993(1)KarLJ591
ORDERShivappa, J.1. This petition is under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking for anticipatory bail.2. The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.12 on a complaint filed by the mother of the deceased by name Chamba Bai to the Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga alleging that her son was taken to custody by Veerabhadrappa, A.S.I, attached to Chowk Police Station, Gulbarga, at the instance of one B.N.Patil and he was detained in the lockup, and later shifted and entrusted to the custody of the present petitioner who was working at 'Station Bazaar Police Station', Gulbarga. It is the case of the complainant that the deceased Kamalakar was illegally detained in both at Chowk Police Station and Bazaar Police Station from 16.5.1992 to 19.6.1992. During that period he was subjected to severe torture in the sense, brutally assaulting him. Ultimately, he breathed his last in police custody on 9.7.1992 at 3.30 p.m. at Station Bazaar Police Station, Gulbarga.3. Among these accused, A. 11 t...
Tag this Judgment!Siddalingappa and Others Vs. State by Circle Inspector of Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ397
Hiremath, J.1. The present appellants and another Basalingappa s/o Basappa were tried before the Sessions Court at Raichur for offences under Sections 302, 353 and 506 r/w S. 34, IPC and 109 r/w S. 302, IPC. The substantive charge of these offences was against A. 1 to A. 4, the present appellants. The 5th accused was charged only under Section 109 r/w Section 302, I.P.C. for having abetted the commission of the murder of deceased Rangappa by A. 1 to A. 4. While A. 5 was acquitted, the present appellants were convicted under sections 302, 324 and 353 r/w S. 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, simple imprisonment for one month and simple imprisonment for 6 months respectively each for the aforesaid offences. 2. The prosecution case is brief and simple. A. 1 to A. 2 that is appellants 1 and 2 herein are the sons of one Sangyarangayya of the same village Honnakatamalli in Deodurg Taluk of Raichur District. This Sangya Rangayya was murdered some time prior to this incident th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »