Karnataka Court September 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.
Appropriate Authority and Others Vs. J.S.A. Raghava Reddy and Others Overruled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: (1993)110CTR(Kar)96; ILR1992KAR3268; [1993]199ITR508(KAR); [1993]199ITR508(Karn)
K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the respondents in Writ Petition No. 13984 of 1992 (see above) against the order dated August 5, 1992, passed by the learned single judge.2. The learned single judge has followed a decision of the High Court of Madras in K. V. Kishore v. Appropriate Authority : [1991]189ITR264(Mad) .3. The question for consideration is whether the provisions contained in section 269UC of Chapter XXC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are applicable to the alienation of the property made under one deed by several co-owners, the value of which exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs but the value of the share of each of the co-owners does not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs.4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that, as the property is one and it is conveyed under one deed, even though it to owned by several persons, the provisions of Chapter XXC and specially section 269UC of the Income-tax Act are attracted. Section 269UC of the Act which is relevant for our purpose...
Krishna Reddy Vs. Management of K.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3265; (1993)IILLJ1048Kant
K.A. Swami, A.C.J.1. At the stage of admission the respondents have put in appearance through a counsel. Therefore, the appeal is admitted and it is heard for final disposal as it lies in a very narrow campass. 2. The appeal is preferred against the order dated May 29, 1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 10860/1991. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner challenged the order dated June 6, 1990 passed by the second respondent in No. KST : RM : BRR : DFL : 107 : 90-91. The second respondent suo motu exercised his power under Regulation 35(1)(ii) of the K.S.R.T.C. Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations') and set aside the order dated March 15, 1990 passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the appellant in No. KST : KLR : EFL : 1321 : 89 : 1208 and remitted the case to the disciplinary authority with a direction to conduct a detailed enquiry as contemplated under the Regulations. 3. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition...
Government of Karnataka Vs. K. Sudhakar Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3276
Krishnan, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal against the order and decree of Civil Judge, Yadgir in Arbitration Case No, 10/90 by which he made the award passed by the sole arbitrator Sri N.D. Deshpande, a rule of the Court and pronounced judgment according to the award under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The appeal was listed for admission and as both the parties were ready, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, the appeal was taken up for final disposal. 3. The matter relates to the work of 'Construction of Shahapur Branch Canal from KM.29.73 to KM. 35.00 - Reach No. V (Balance work including structures)'. As a dispute arose between the State and the contractor in respect of the said work, it was referred to the sole arbitrator Sri N.D. Deshpande, who gave his award dt 5.10.1990 and at the request of the contractor, the arbitrator filed the award in Court and after notices, to all the concerned and after hearing all the ...
H.Y. Jadhav Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka Gandhina ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: [1994]94STC205(Kar)
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. The petitioner is a railway contractor. For the years 1977-78 to 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1984-85 the assessment was completed under section 12(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Act) by exempting the turnover relating to supply of stone ballast and spreading out the same along the railway track. According to the assessing authority the transaction was in the nature of works contract and not supply contract. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.) initiated suo motu proceedings under section 21 of the Act and issued show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that the assessing authority was not justified in allowing the exemption in respect of the turnovers relating to supply of stone ballast to the railways. The revisional authority proceeded on the ground that since the petitioner was entrusted with the collecting and stacking of ballast in a particular manner along the railway track, it would be ...
Balamma Vs. Srinivas
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1992
Reported in: II(1993)DMC133; ILR1993KAR1061
N.D.V. Bhat, J 1. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.1984 passed by the II Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No. 2074/1980. By the said judgment, the lower Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by declaring that plaintiffs-1 and 2 are the children of late S. Ramaswami and that they are together entitled to half a share in the Insurance amount, D.C.R.G., arrears of salary or any other amount apart from the petition amount payable on account of the death of S. Ramaswami. The prayer made for declaration that defendants-1 and 2 are not the wife and daughter of S. Ramaswami was negatived. Defendants-1 and 2 being aggrieved by that part of judgment which has gone against them have preferred this Appeal. The facts relevant for the disposal of this Appeal, briefly stated, are as under: 2. Plaintiff-3 is the wife of late Ramaswamy who was working in the Department of Agriculture of Government of Karnataka, the marriage have taken place on 27.8.197...
An Advocate Vs. Disciplinary Committee
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2816; 1993(2)KarLJ318
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. The facts relevant and necessary for resolving the controversy raised in this Writ Petition in brief are:The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. The third respondent filed complaint alleging misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner received a notice dated 7-2-1991 from the first respondent fixing the date of hearing on 10-3-1991. During the pendency of the proceedings before respondent No. 1 it was reconstituted and the proceedings were continued as provided under Section 36A of the Advocates Act, 1961. On 19-1-1992 the petitioner filed a Memo stating that the proceedings pending before respondent No. 1 stood transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B(1) of the Act, as the complaint was made on 26-7-1990 and the period of one year had expired on 27-7-1991. Thus, the petitioner contended that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry. The first respondent passed the order on the said Memo on 19-1-992 r...
Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2966; 1993(4)KarLJ7
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J1. The petitioner is a factory engaged in the manufacture of cement. It is located at Bagalkot, Bijapur District. Limestone is one of the raw materials required for the manufacture of cement. To get the limestone, the petitioner factory has taken certain mining areas controlled by the respondents. In the mining area, a plant is put up for crushing the limestone which is thereafter sent to the factory for the manufacture of cement.2. The second respondent issued a notice as per Annexure-B to the petitioner bringing to its notice that the plant installed by the petitioner was covered by the Mines Act. In response to the notice, the petitioner sent a letter as per Annexure-B by way of reply stating that the crushing plant was a factory covered by the Factories Act, 1948 (the Act for short) and that therefore it might be exempted from the application of the Mines Act. The request was rejected by the letter of respondent-2 written as per Annexure-C. The petitioner agai...
Sri T. Anandrao Vs. the State of Karnataka by State Public Prosecutor, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1992
Reported in: 1993(1)ALT(Cri)622; 1993CriLJ1012; 1992(4)KarLJ548
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who was the complaint in the trial Court under S. 397, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7-11-1990 passed by the J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli, in C.C. No. 2067 of 1986. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondent 1 and the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 8 and 10. 3. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Suburban Police Station, Hubli, which came to be registered at P.R. No. 190/86. Respondents 2 to 10 also filed a counter-complaint. The police filed a charge-sheet against respondents 2 to 10. After investigation of the complaint of the petitioner, a case was registered at C.C. No. 2067 of 1986 in the Court of the I Judicial Magistrate, Hubli, for the offences under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 504, 427 read with S. 149, I.P.C. The evidence was also taken. On 7-11-1990, the Assistant Public Prosecutor who in charge of that case filed a Memo under S. 321, Cr.P.C. statin...
Chikka Thimmegowda Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2836; 1992(3)KarLJ669; (1993)ILLJ709Kant
1. The question of law involved in all these petitions is common and, therefore, they are clubbed together and a common order is passed. 2. The point for consideration in these writ petitions is 'Whether the petitioners who were the employees of the Karnataka Government Insurance Department (hereinafter referred to as 'the KGID') whose services were subsequently absorbed in one of the nationalised insurance companies which came into existence pursuant to the nationalisation of insurance business in the country are to be retired on attaining the age of sixty years of fifty-eight years ?' 3. In all these petitions the reliefs sought for are common, viz., (i) to quash the orders of retirement of the petitioners at the age of fifty eight years; and (ii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of sixty years and not to terminate them at he age of fifty-eight years as is now ordered. 4. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these p...
Anandrao Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR169
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who was the complainant in the trial Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7.11.1990 passed by the J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli, in C.C.No. 2067 of 1986. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for respondent-1 and the learned Counsel for respondents-2 to 8 and 10. 3. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Suburban Police Station, Hubli, which came to be registered at P.R.No. 190/86. Respondents-2 to 10 also filed a counter complaint. The police filed a charge sheet against respondents - 2 to 10. After investigation of the complaint of the petitioner, a case was registered at C.C.No. 2067 of 1986 in the Court of the I Judicial Magistrate, Hubli, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 427 read with Section 149 l.P.C. The evidence was also taken. On 7.11.1990, the Assistant Public Prosecutor who was incharge of that case filed a Memo u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »