Karnataka Court October 1993 Judgments
State of Karanataka Vs. Balappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1993
Reported in: II(1999)DMC559
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The State being aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in S.C. No. 25/1990 in acquitting A-1 and A-2 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with 34, IPC has presented this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution was that deceased Amarawwa got married to A-2 Shivanand on 10-5-1987. The marriage took place in the house of A-1 Balappa. Deceased Amarawwa was sent to the house of A-2 after the marriage ceremony. A-1 is the father of A-2. A-1 the father and A-2 the husband of the deceased were living together. 3. Prior to the marriage there was an engagement agreement dated 28-4-1986. This engagement agreement was referred to as per custom as a settlement deed. The settlement deed is marked as Ex. P-1. According to the settlement deed, it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 2000/-, one tola gold and one wrist watch was given to the husband-A-2. A-1 the father was to give two sarees, one gold borimala sara and one pair of go...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Annayyappa and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)116CTR(Kar)175; [1994]206ITR509(KAR); [1994]206ITR509(Karn); [1994]74TAXMAN604(Kar)
S. Venkataraman, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising from its order under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short), for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax and set aside the orders of the Wealth-tax Officer on the ground that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax cannot set aside the assessment and issue directions to value the property by capitalisation of rent when the properties were leased to tenants for rent ?'2. The facts leading to the above reference are as hereunder :The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which owned land measuring 1 acre...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Consulting Engineers and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)118CTR(Kar)449; ILR1994KAR913; [1994]206ITR237(KAR); [1994]206ITR237(Karn); 1994(38)KarLJ28
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The third respondent is the owner of premises bearing Nos. 23-24, S.B.I. Senior Officers' Colony, Koramangala, III Block, Bangalore. The first petitioner is the tenant in respect of the first floor of the said premises having taken it on lease from the third respondent. For convenience the third respondent and first petitioner will (hereinafter be referred to as the 'owner' and the 'tenant'). The second petitioner is an employee of the first petitioner who is in occupation of the said first floor portion (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted portion'). According to the tenant, the lease was originally for a period of four years from May 10, 1985, and by mutual consent, it has been extended up to May 10, 1994. 2. The owner entered into an agreement dated January 21, 1993, with one Mr. Krishna Kapila agreeing to sell the entire property for a consideration of Rs. 26,50,000 and received Rs. 6,50,000 as advance. The agreement provided that the owner shall the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Cheekere Kariyappa Poovaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2959; 1994(4)KarLJ165
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, C.J. 1. This Petition in the first instance was referred to a Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice N. Venkatachala and Mr. Justice K. Shivashankar Bhat, by order of the learned Single Judge, Hanumanthappa J., dated 4.7.1991. The Division Bench in turn by order dated 4.10.1991 referred it to a Special Bench. This is how it has been placed before this Bench for disposal. It was to be heard with Writ Appeal No. 956/90, which is already disposed of by us by a separate Judgment, : AIR1994Kant52 . 2. So far as this Petition is concerned, the Points that arise for our Consideration are as under: (1) Are the holders of Bane Lands in Coorg upon Jamma tenure, the owners thereof? (2) Whether Rule 167(1) of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation 1899 continues in operation despite the repeal of the Regulation by Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964? (3) To what relief the petitioners are entitled to 3. In order to appreciate the grievances posed by the petitioners, it is neces...
Tag this Judgment!Harikumar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1993
Reported in: I(1994)DMC356; ILR1993KAR3035; 1994(3)KarLJ335
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, C.J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of HIREMATH and SREENIVASA REDDY, JJ, by the Order dated 13th April 1993, has referred the following Point of Law for Decision of the Full Bench as per Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The said Point of Law reads as under:- 'Whether Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is Constitutionally and legally valid?' 2. We have heard learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused and the learned Advocate General for respondent-State of Karnataka, as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, who has waived service of notice issued to the Attorney General as the Constitutional validity of the provision of the Central Act, is under challenge. 3. Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') reads as under: '8-A. Burden of proof in certain cases.- Where any person is prosecuted for taking or abetting the taking of any dowry under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Venu Vs. Assistant Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-22-1993
Reported in: I(1994)ACC257; ILR1993KAR3387
ORDERVasanthakumar, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the endorsement dated 28.6.1993 issued to the petitioner by the Registering Authority in respect of his notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Before dealing with the contentions advanced by the petitioner, it is relevant to advert to the various provisions governing the alteration in Motor Vehicle, Section .52 of the Act reads:-'Alteration in motor vehicle.- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are no longer accurate, unless- (a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or the place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, of the alteration he proposes to make; and (b) he has obtained, the approval of that registering authority to make such alteration: Provided that it shall not be neces...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. J. Navneethan Vs. Director (Maintenance)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3404; 1993(4)KarLJ544
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. This Revision Petition is by the landlord-petitioner directed against the order dated 5.2.1993, passed by the learned 4th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall, Bangalore, in H.R.C. No. 10404/92.2. The brief facts leading to this Revision Petition are :The petitioner filed petition under Section 21(1)(f), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act, 1961') seeking an order of eviction against the respondents.The first respondent is the Director (Maintenance), Southern Telecom Sub-Region, 125, Infantry Road, Bangalore and respondent No. 2 who is working under the first respondent is in occupation of the schedule premises.The second respondent in his objection statement among other grounds has raised a ground that the petition filed for eviction itself was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971'), as the Act 1961 h...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoruka Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR205; 1993(4)KarLJ584
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Though there are two petitioners, the first petitioner is the actual petitioner and therefore hereafter the reference will be only to the said petitioner unless the context requires otherwise.2. The decision of the second respondent-Board dated 29.7.1993 is under challenge. By that decision the Board conveyed to the petitioner that rebate in demand charges sought for by the petitioner cannot be considered as the same is not covered in the Agreement executed by the petitioner. The second subject referred in the said decision is not necessary to be stated since there is no challenge to that aspect. The State of Karnataka decided to invite private participation in the generation of electrical energy in the State, by setting up mini hydel plants in the private sector. The petitioner was the first one to venture into setting up a mini hydel plant. An Agreement was entered into between the State Government and the petitioner on 3.2.1986 (Annexure-A) in this rega...
Tag this Judgment!G. Raghavendra Babu Vs. Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Boar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant207; ILR1993KAR3130; 1993(4)KarLJ534
ORDERS. B. Majmudar, C.J.1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and by consent this writ appeal is treated to have been heard finally and is disposed of by this judgment.2. The short question involved is whether the resolution passed by the first respondent, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (for short Examination Board) to the effect that those students who have taken Kannada and Hindi as third language, 15 grace marks should be given as per the orders of the Government and secondly that in each subject S.marks and altogether not exceeding 14 marks should be given to a candidate to pass the examination to the best advantage of the students concerned, is required to be implemented in the case of the appellant. Appellant had appeared at the S.S.L.C. examination held in May 1993 and is declared to have failed in the said examination. He secured the marks as follows:-- English 37 for 125 Kannada 35 for 100 Hindi 8 for 100 Social Science 53 for 100 General Sci...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Patil Vs. Lakshamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3617; 1993(4)KarLJ381
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act against the order dated 27.9.1993, passed by the III Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, In H.R.C. No. 10854 of 1989 on I.A.No. 8. 2. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the landlady. They will be referred to as such during the course of this order for convenience. 3. The facts, briefly stated are the following: The landlady filed petition seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short the Act). When the tenant remained absent, the trial Court passed the ex parte order on 22.1.1990 granting two months time to him to vacate the schedule premises. Later, the tenant filed a Civil Revision Petition as well as Miscellaneous Petition for setting aside the ex parte order. The ex parte order was set aside and the H.R.C. petition was restored. Thereafter the landlady filed I.A.No. II under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »