Karnataka Court November 1993 Judgments

State of Karnataka Vs. Rajan S/O Keshavan and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1994(1)ALT(Cri)464; 1994CriLJ1042; ILR1994KAR318; 1994(1)KarLJ237

Hiremath, J.1. Five accused took trial in the Sessions Court for offences under sections 449, 396 & 307 I.P.C. and all of them were convicted under sections 449, 396, 307 & 395 IPC and each of them sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months. Though conviction was recorded under Section 395 IPC as well no separate sentence was passed. While the appellants A-2 to A-4 have challenged their conviction in Cr. A. No. 221-92 the State has sought enhancement of sentence in Cr. A. No. 217/92. A-1 Rajan has not challenged his conviction or sentence. In Cr. A. No. 217/92 however he is respondent No. 1 and Sri S. G. Bhagawan, a Senior Counsel, was appointed Amicus Curiae to defend him whereas other accused-respondents were represented by their Counsel who represents them in other appeal filed by them. 2. The case presents a gory incident of two murders and injury to some of the witnesses on the evening of 21-9-1988 in the hou...

Mysore Cements Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1994]93STC464(Kar)

ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Notice regarding Rule was issued and on appearance, by consent these petitions were finally heard. The petitioner is a manufacturer and dealer in cement and is an assessee under the Karnataka Sales-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These petitions relate to asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1981- 82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 and involve a common question of law. Petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the five orders of rectification made under s. 25A adding packing charges regarding cement to the taxable turnover. The petitioner contends that the assessment orders do not suffer from any mistake apparent from the record and consequently the orders of rectification are without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 2. The petitioner was initially assessed to tax in regard to the said five years by orders dt. 27th May, 1988, 27th May, 1988, 28th May, 1988, 20th July, 1988 and 20th July, 1988. On appeal by the petitioner, the appellat...

Mysore Cements Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (As ...

Court: Karnataka

1. Notice regarding Rule was issued and on appearance, by consent these petitions were finally heard. The petitioner is a manufacturer and dealer in cement and is an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These petitions relate to assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 and involve a common question of law. The petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the five orders of rectification made under section 25A adding packing regarding cement to the taxable turnover. The petitioner contends that the assessment orders do not suffer from any mistake apparent from the record and consequently the orders of rectification are without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 2. The petitioner was initially assessed to tax in regard to the said five years by orders dared May 27, 1988, May 27, 1988, May 28, 1988, July 20, 1988 and July 20, 1988. On appeal by the petitioner, the appellate authority set aside the ...

A.V. Prakash Vs. Senior Labour Inspector

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1994(68)FLR487]; ILR1994KAR150; 1993(4)KarLJ579; (1994)IILLJ50Kant

ORDER1. Though this appears for admission, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the sides.2. The petitioners herein are accused in C. C. No. 20434/93 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The said case was registered on a complaint lodged by the Senior Labour Inspector under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). The accused have filed this petition contending that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to them and that there was no scope for the Senior Labour Inspector to expect compliance of the various provisions of the Act by them and the learned Magistrate was Act by them and the learned Magistrate was not right in registering the case and issuing process on the basis of such a complaint.3. As per the averments in the complaint, the accused person are partners of Associate Detective & Security Services and they are therefore employers within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, in respec...

Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1994]94STC76(Kar)

Shivshankar Bhat, J. 1. The first petitioner is a manufacturer of electrical motors and other electrical goods. In the original writ petition, petitioners sought the quashing of the proposition notice (annexure Q dated March 1, 1988), whereby the second respondent had proposed to levy entry tax for the year 1982-83 (April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983) under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 (for short 'the Act') in respect of a few goods brought by the first petitioner-company for being used as inputs in the manufacture of electrical goods by the first petitioner-company. Those goods used as inputs were mainly aluminium ingots, industrial gases, iron and steel, petroleum products, coal and coke, etc. These are purchased for use either directly or incidentally in the course of the manufacturing activity of the first petitioner-company. The other relief sought by the petitioners was for declaring that entry ...

Narayanasa Bhimasa Pawar Vs. Jawaharlal Shanomiksa Arisiddi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1994(2)ALT(Cri)67; 1995(1)ALT(Cri)601; ILR1994KAR549; 1994(1)KarLJ351

ORDERKrishnan, J1. The complainants in C.C. 452 and 598 of 1990 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad have preferred these Revision Petitions challenging the common order of acquittal recorded in both the Cases. The State has not preferred any Appeal against these orders.2. The two Cases are Case and Counter Case arising from the same incident stated to have taken place on 30.1.1990 is the undisputed case of both the parties. The common grievance ventilated by both the learned Advocates who appear for the petitioners is, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was wholly in error in passing a common judgment in both the Cases and that he has freely made use of the evidence in one Case for appreciating the Case of the prosecution in the other and the same is impermissible in law and on this ground itself the order of acquittal recorded in two Cases is liable to be set aside.3. That the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed a common judgment is not in disp...

Manjunath Vs. Divisional Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1993KAR3561

ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J. 1. Though the Petitions are listed for orders, by consent of both the Counsel for the parties, the Petitions are taken up for final hearing. Whether the District Magistrate is empowered to transfer the licence issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') from the name of the licencee to the name of a third person, without any application being filed by the licencee for permission to transfer? is the question that arises for the consideration of the Court in these Petitions. 2. Sri Vinayaka Talkies, Gounapalli Village, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, is located in (Old Sy.Nos.15/4 and 15/6) new V.P. Khate No. 43/1 and K.S.444 of Gounapalli village. Originally these lands belonged to one Gangaiah, the father of the petitioner in W.P.Nos.33055 and 33056 of 1993. 3. That, in the year 1977-78, the second respondent issued 'No objection certificate' in the name of G. Ramakrishna son of Gangaiah for construction...

Dr. B. Shivalingaiah Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR242; 1994(2)KarLJ189

ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. Both these Petitions are listed for Preliminary Hearing. By consent of both parties both the Petitions are disposed of.2. The reliefs sought and the questions to be decided in both these Petitions are common. Hence, they are clubbed together and a Common Order is passed.3. W.P.No. 32769 of 1993 is the one filed by Dr. B. Shivalingaiah challenging curtailing his appointment as Member Secretary of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter called as the Board) and in his place appointing one Sri. K, Sudhakar, a Junior Grade K.A.S. Officer.4. W.P.No. 33051 of 1993 is filed by one Sri, A.V. Amarnathan, an Advocate of this Bar as a Public Interest Litigation seeking for a declaration that the appointment of Sri, K. Sudhakar as Member Secretary of the Board as illegal and to continue Dr. Shivalingaiah as a Member Secretary.5. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these two Writ Petitions are:The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is a Boar...

Shivanna Vs. Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1993KAR3289; 1993(4)KarLJ538

ORDERS.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. We have heard the learned Advocate for parties. With the consent of the learned Advocate, this Appeal is treated to have been admitted and having been heard finally, disposed of by this Order.2. The short question involved in this Appeal is, whether the appellant-student can be said to have passed the S.S.L.C. Examination conducted in the month of April, 1993. The appellant had obtained the following marks in each of the subjects.Kannada67 for 125English37 for100Hindi11 for 100Mathematics43 for 100General Science39 for 100Social Science34 for 100Total2313. The appellant was declared to have failed. He relied upon a Government Order, Annexure-'B', which stated that the candidates who have failed in Third Language in the S.S.LC. Examination held in the month of March, 1993, shall be declared to have passed. The learned Single Judge before whom the Writ Petition was moved by the appellant for a declaration that he be declared to have passed the S.S.L.C. Examinat...

Siddappa Vs. Mariyappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1994KAR145; 1994(2)KarLJ207

ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Petitioner is the auction purchaser. The 3rd respondent is the decree holder. The rest of the parties are either judgment debtor or his legal representatives.2. The decree holder obtained a money decree and in execution of the same the property in question was brought to sale. The sale in the spot was on 23.6.1982. The final bid was offered in the Court precinct on 24.9.1983. The sale was for Rs. 1,500/- subject to an encumbrance of Rs.7,000/-. The sale was confirmed on 29.6.1985.3. Misc. No. 17/86 was filed by the judgment debtors on 3.9.1986. The said petition was purported to be under Section 47 C.P.C. questioning the sale held in execution of the decree and the confirmation of the sale. The Judgment Debtors contended that the decree holder had filed a suit in O.S.No.234/74 and Execution No. 104/78 and the suit was for arrears of interest only arising out of simple mortgage. They contended that such a decree cannot be obtained by splitting up the mortgag...