Karnataka Court February 1993 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.
M.L. Lakshmi Bai Vs. Kendaganna Swamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC542; ILR1993KAR2597; 1993(3)KarLJ401
ORDERShivappa, J.1. Though this Case was heard and reserved for Orders, for certain clarification it was posted for further arguments. Further arguments heard.2. The petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 28.3.1990 passed by the Prl.District Judge, Mysore in Ex.Case No. 68/87, overruling the objections filed by the Judgment Debtors and ordering issue of delivery warrant for the delivery of the property to the decree-holder.3. To appreciate the contentions urged in this case the facts in brief may be stated thus:One Chikkaranojappa had given the suit schedule property, namely, 'Ranappa Choultry' for charitable purposes. The property was given for the benefit of the public at large for the use of the pilgrims and public. The income derived from the said property was being utilised for feeding the devotees in Nanjangud. Thus a Public Charitable Trust was created during his life time and a Settlement Deed also came into existence amongst his heirs wherein there is a recital tha...
Siddalingappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR868; 1992(4)KarLJ728
ORDERShivaprakash, J.1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner questions the legality of the order dated 27th June 1992 (Annexure-B) passed by the first respondent in terms of which the third respondent is posted as Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) in the second respondent - Corporation in the place of the petitioner who was holding the said post as on the date when the said order was made. He also seeks a direction to the second respondent to continue him in the post of Deputy Commissioner (Revenue). The circumstances of the case under which the aforesaid order was made by the Government is as follows.2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Deputy Commissioner in the second respondent Corporation on 1.7.1990 and regularised with effect from 1.1.1991. A copy of the appointment order dated 8.1.1991 is produced as Annexure-A. It could be seen therefrom that the petitioner who was Revenue Officer (South) was promoted, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, on of...
Karnataka Leasing and Commercial Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Smt. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1993
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas433(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. This appeal is by the company and its managing director against which an order was made by the learned company judge to issue advertisement of the company petition for winding up. The petition was admitted earlier on August 28, 1992. 2. The proceedings were started on June 18, 1992, on which date notice regarding admission was ordered. On the same day, the learned company judge also restrained the respondents from alienating any assets of the company. 3. The petition was filed for winding up under section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, mainly asserting that the company is unable to pay its debts to the creditors. In the petition it is averred that there are several depositors who deposited amounts in the company and some of the depositors were due for refund on maturity. But, the company has failed to pay the same to the depositors. The petition was filed by two different petitioners. The petition further states that several cheques issued by the compan...
K. Venkatesh Nayak Vs. Income-tax Officer and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1993
Reported in: (1993)112CTR(Kar)167; ILR1993KAR1139; [1993]202ITR575(KAR); [1993]202ITR575(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ310
K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated October 12, 1992, passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 29666 of 1992. The learned single single has rejected the writ petition, therefore, the petitioner in the writ petition has come up in this appeal. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for the following reliefs : '(A) (To) quash the prosecution proceedings instituted by respondent No. 1 under private complaint as per annexure 'A' on the strength of the order of sanction issued by respondent No. 2 as per annexure 'B' and registered as C. C. No. 97 of 1992 on the file of the Second Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction. as the case may be, holding the same as not maintainable in law and ab initio void. (B) (To) quash the levy of interest under section 215 and under section 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, levied by respondent No. 1, in t...
Coorg Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1993
Reported in: [1994]208ITR473(KAR); [1994]208ITR473(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ337
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. A highly technical approach by the assessing authority has resulted in the petitioner coming to this court in this revision petition.2. The assessee derived agricultural income from tea. For the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee while filing its return also filed the order of assessment made under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. At the same time, it was pointed out that an appeal is pending against the said order and, therefore, sought postponement of the assessment by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. The assessing authority, however, proceeded to make the order on August 19, 1982, observing that since the assessment under the Income-tax Act has been concluded, there was no statutory bar for him to conclude the assessment under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act. 1957.3. It seems the Commissioner income-tax allowed the appeal of the petitioner to some extent and reduced the total tea income from Rs. 22,15,116 to Rs. 21,41,573. Though this...
Loharu Steel Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1993
Reported in: 1993(66)ELT179(Kar); ILR1993KAR567; 1993(1)KarLJ443
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 16-12- 1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 38259/92. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition has come up in the appeal. 2. In the writ petition the appellant sought for quashing the show cause notice dated 27-8-1992 bearing C. No. V/72/15/109/92 C. 1, produced as Annexure-F in the writ petition. The learned single Judge has taken a view that what is issued is a show-cause notice and it is certainly open to the petitioner to raise the questions raised in the writ petition before the authorities concerned and thereafter exhaust other remedies that may be available under the statute before approaching this Court. Accordingly the learned single Judge has declined to interfere. 3. The show-cause notice is issued under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). It reads thus : 'WHEREAS it appears that M/s. Loharu Steel Industries, Rules 9(1), 52A, 53 read with Rule ...