Karnataka Court March 1993 Judgments
Lakshminarayana Asranna Vs. Dr. K. Gananatha Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1328; 1993(2)KarLJ112
K.A.Swami, Ag. C.J 1. This Appeal is preferred as against the order dated 4th November 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 17435 of 1992. The first respondent in this appeal was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. He sought for quashing the order dated 7.6.1992 passed by the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments, Bangalore in No. ADM 8 MSC CR MOKKAM 5:92-93 placing him under suspension in exercise of powers under Section 45 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and appointing the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mangalore, as the Administrator of the Temple. 2. Learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that the Commissioner has acted arbitrarily in placing the first respondent under suspension. Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order dated 7.6.1992 - Annexure A to t...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Quddus Vs. S. Veerappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant20
1. This appeal has been filed by the first defendant under Section 96 GPC against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-92 passed in O.S. 326/83 by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City decreeing the suit for declaration of title and injunction.2. The suit was filed by respondent-1 Veerappa and his wife respondent-2 Smt. Bhagirathamma who died during the pendency of the suit and her legal representatives are brought on record. According to respondents 1 & 2 and as per the findings of the trial Court, Shri. Gurunanajaiah and his wife Rudramma had two sons name Anubasappa and Nanjappa, Anubasappa being the older son. They had also two more daughters named Bhagirathamma (plaintiff No. 2) and Gangamma. According to plaint averments, Nanjappa was an Ayurvedic Pundit and he was having ayurvedic practice both at Tumkur and Bangalore. He also owned a cycle shop at Tumkur. He had earned enough to acquire properties and plaint schedule property was one of his self acquired properties. Nan...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K.T. Shivaiah Vs. G. Puttaswamy Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1564; 1994(3)KarLJ360
N.D.V. Bhat, J1. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.2,1993 passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on I.As. III and V in O.S.No. 6342/1992. By the said order, the lower Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff at I.A.III and I.A.V filed by the proposed defendant-2 was allowed. The lower Court vacated the temporary injunction granted earlier by the same order.2. Since Dr. Shivaiah and Sri Vishwanatha Shetty submitted to the Court that the matter be disposed of on merits, the matter has been taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.3. I have heard Dr. Shivaiah in person and Sri Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.4. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are as under:Karnataka State T.B.Association, Bangalore, is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. The Society for the purpose of carrying out its affairs, is governed by its Rules a...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sunil Sandeep Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)ALT(Cri)303; 1993CriLJ2554; ILR1993KAR1331; 1993(2)KarLJ54
1. The Appellant was convicted for the Offences punishable under Ss. 448, 342, 392 read with S. 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, in SC No. 9 of 1982, by the learned VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, vide judgment dated 22-2-1989, and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months for the offence punishable under S. 448, IPC : R.I. for 6 months for the offence punishable under S. 342, IPC : a minimum sentence of 7 years R.I. for the offence punishable under S. 392 read with S. 397, IPC and a substantial sentence of R.I. for 3 months for the offence under the Indian Arms Act. The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. However, he was acquitted of the offences punishable under S. 307 and Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In this Appeal, the appellant has mainly pleaded the legal insanity at the time of the commission of these offences and therefore, benefit of S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code is to be extended and he shall b...
Tag this Judgment!Muddeereswara Mining Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1993
Reported in: (1993)114CTR(Kar)361; [1993]204ITR550(KAR); [1993]204ITR550(Karn); [1994]72TAXMAN186(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these references, we are required to answer the following two questions referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that 'granite' is a 'mineral' within the meaning of the term found in section 80HHC(b)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to the allowance claimed under section 80HHC in respect of the granite exported from India ?'2. Though one more question has been referred in I.T.R.Cs. Nos. 135 and 136 of 1992, pertaining to a claim towards business expenditure, no argument was addressed on the said question. Hence, we proceed on the basis that we are required to consider only the above two questions which are in substance the same question worded differently. A detailed reference to the f...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashivanagar Club, Bangalore Vs. Nataraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant195; ILR1993KAR2313; 1993(2)KarLJ507
1. This appeal has arisen out of an order dated 1-3-1993 passed by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on I.A. No. I in O.S. No. 448/1993.2. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Counsel on either side submitted that the matter may be disposed of finally on merits. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for final disposal on merits of the appeal.3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:Defendant-appellant is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff is said to be one of the members of the defendant's Society. During the General Body Meeting held on 22-8-1992 plaintiff was elected as the Honorary Secretary for a period of one year. It is stated that plaintiff has been working as the Honorary Secretary ever since then. When this was so, according to the plaintiff, some difference of opinion arose as between him and the President, with the result, t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Jose Paul Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2910; 1993(4)KarLJ709
ORDERShivaprakash, J.1. The petitioner who is presently holding the post of Deputy Chairman, New Mangalore Port Trust, a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, seeks the following reliefs in this Writ Petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:'(a) Declare Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (A) of the executive Order No. A-12022/21/86-PE-1 dated 22.12.1987 -Annexure-D - as illegal and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to give due effect to the selection held on 4.5.1992 for the posts of Chairmen to the New Mangalore Port Trust and Tuticorin Port Trust; .(c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to hold fresh selection to the posts of Chairmen to New Mangalore Port Trust and Tuticorin Port Trust in accordance with law.'2. The petitio...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. G. Lakshman and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)310; 1993CriLJ2331; ILR1993KAR1430; 1992(2)KarLJ190
ORDER1. Since the question of law and facts involved in both these petitions are common, both the petitions are clubbed and a common order is passed. 2. These two petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bellary, in C.C. No. 227 of 1985 on I. As. Nos. 13 and 14 dated 26-5-1989 wherein he rejected I.A. No. 13 filed by the D.S.P., C.B.I., seeking for permission to make further investigation and to stay the proceedings and I.A. No. 14 filed by the D.S.P., C.B.I., requesting the Court to drop the proceedings and to discharge the accused and to hand over the documents produced in the case to him for further investigation. 2A. For the sake of convenience, in these petitions the parties are referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. Before the trial Court the accused were (1), G. Lakshman, (2) G. Raghunath, (3) G. Jagannath, (4) R. N. Laxman, (5) Srinivasulu, (6) Yadunandan Prasad Dangwal and (7) Hardeep Singh and the complainant was the State of Karn...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Prema Kumari Vs. D.S. Srinivasa Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1993
Reported in: I(1995)DMC149; ILR1993KAR1862; 1994(3)KarLJ445
Venkataraman, J.1. This Appeal is filed by the petitioner.2. As both the parties are represented by Advocates, the matter is taken up for final disposal.3. Learned Government Advocate who has been notified has not filed any objections.4. This Appeal is filed by the petitioner in P.Mis.No. 8/1987 on the file of the Court of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore against her order dated 5.3.1992 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for permission to file a suit as an indigent person.5. The only ground on which the lower Court has rejected appellant's application is that she had received a sum of Rs. 8,000/-towards maintenance in an execution case and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of an appeal preferred by her against her husband and that she could therefore pay the Court fee.6. It is undisputed that the sum of Rs. 8,000/- was recovered by the appellant being arrears of maintenance after executing an order passed in her favour. The maintenance amount is awarded ma...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaboob Ali Mohammed Yakub and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka and Anothe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1993
Reported in: [1993]90STC276(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The assessee has filed this revision petition in respect of an order of assessment made for the period, October 1, 1983 to September 30, 1984. The assessee is a dealer in hardware, paints, iron and steel and other items. The assessee deals both on retail and wholesale basis. 2. For the period in question the assessee filed a return. However, the assessing authority proceeded to make an order to the best of his judgment after issuing a proposition notice. The assessing authority proposed to reclassify the turnover of the sale of goods and exempted goods in the books maintained, though the assessee asserts that there was already such classification. After reclassifying the turnover of the respective turnovers as against the classified commodities the total taxable turnover came to Rs. 3,88,500. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner issued a notice under section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, proposing to revise the order of the assessment. The mai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »