Karnataka Court October 1995 Judgments
Shankar Hanamant Karaning Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2332; ILR1996KAR458; 1995(5)KarLJ408
ORDER1. This is an application for grant of bail. The petitioner has submitted in his application that incidents of some seriousness took place in Gokak town on the evening of 23-4-1994 as a result of which the police authorities have registered a series of offences. We are here concerned with the first of the incidents wherein it is alleged that a crowd of persons lead by the petitioner is supposed to have attacked the deceased Chandru at about 6.30 p.m. with deadly weapons as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries and subsequently died. Since there were a large number of persons who took part in the incident, the police have registered offences inter alia under Section 302, but they have also invoked the charge of rioting an unlawful assembly. According to the petitioner, he belongs to a particular political party and is an ex-M.L.A. and he was unsuccessful in the last election. It is the contention that there is bitter political rivalry in that place and furthermore, he conte...
Tag this Judgment!Manuweb International Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR209; [1996]219ITR54(KAR); [1996]219ITR54(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ54
G.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. . (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor-company') was a company carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of printing and allied machinery. Under an agreement dt. 16th Feb., 1995, the said company agreed to buy property bearing No. 18A, First Main Road, Industrial Town, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. A copy of the said agreement is marked as Annex.'A'. Thereafter, it appears the said company and the vendors filed Form No. 37-I with the first respondent on 28th Feb., 1995, in terms of s. 269UC in Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961, seeking a certificate, in terms of s. 269UL(1) of the said Act from the Appropriate Authority, that it has no objection to the transfer of the said property for an amount equal to the apparent consideration therefor as stated in the agreement. The apparent consideration shown in the agreement is Rs. 39 lakhs. It is stated in the petition that a sum of Rs. 7,80,000 was paid as advance to the vendors leaving a balance of Rs. 31,...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Iqbal Vs. Rehman Khan H. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: I(1996)ACC402; 1996ACJ552; (1998)IIILLJ341Kant
Kumar Iqbal, J. 1. Though this matter has come up for admission as both sides are represented and as the lower Court records have also been received, by consent the matter is heard on merits.2. The appellant who sustained injuries in an accident which took place on March 4, 1989 has sought for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.3. The appellant sustained fracture of left ulna, fracture of left pubic symphysis and an injury to ulna nerve apart from multiple lacerated injuries on the forearm and left arm with extensive loss of skin. Skin-grafting was done. The doctor who examined him on January 25, 1991, i.e., nearly two years after the accident has deposed that there are residual effects of fractures and a gross scar on the left arm with clawing of the left hand fingers. He has further stated that the injuries to ulna nerve had continued. He has opined that the appellant suffered 30 per cent permanent disability of the left arm and 12 per cent permanent disability of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Khatri Vs. Mysore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3373; 1995(6)KarLJ569
ORDERBharuka, J. 1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. The statement of objections has already been filed on behalf of the respondents and with the consent of the parties the Writ Petitions are being finally disposed of.2. The petitioners who are all medical students had appeared for IV Year B.D.S., examination held by the respondent University at Hassan. The 4th respondent College is situated at Mysore. The examinations were held between 15.7.95 to 31.7.95. The practical examination of 'Oral Medicine & Roentogenology' was held on 29.7.95. But the same was cancelled by the University authorities as per the communication Annexure 'B' and the petitioners along with other students were directed to appear for fresh examination to be conducted at J.S.S. Dental College, Mysore, during 3.8.95 to 5.8.95, as is evident from impugned communication Annexure 'B'. The petitioners instead of participating in the said examination have preferred to file these Wri...
Tag this Judgment!Miss. Hajira Tarannum and Others Vs. Common Entrance Test Cell, Govt. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant175; ILR1995KAR3212; 1996(5)KarLJ585
ORDER1. The grievance in these writ petitions is that the petitioners who fall in one or the other categories of reservation created by the Government under its Order dated 17-9-1994 in No. SWD 150 BCA 94 for admission to professional courses have beendenied the benefit thereof by the respondents by wrongly construing the exclusionary Para-C of the said Reservation Order.2. Petitioner in W.P. No. 34001 of 1995 belongs to Muslim community and falls under Category 11 (b). Her case is that pursuant to her appearance at the Common Entrance Test she has been assigned the ranking No. 6136 for Medical/BDS course and No. 11913 for Engineering Course. As per category wise reservation, she being under category 11(b) (Urban), she has been assigned the merit position at 147 (Medical) and 311 (Engineering). Her further case is that, keeping in view her ranking then she appeared for the spot counselling on 2-9-1995 but she was denied the allotment of a seat as per her choice in the reserved category...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. V.V. Mody
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Kar)388; ILR1995KAR3349; [1996]218ITR1(KAR); [1996]218ITR1(Karn); 1996(40)KarLJ583
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore has at the instance of the Revenue, referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in observing that a part of the property transferred was a short-term capital asset and the remaining alone was a long-term capital asset (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that 50% of the selling price of Rs. 1,69,200 received by the assessee on account of sale made on 27th Nov., 1982, be taken as consideration received by him on account of sale of short-term capital asset and the remaining 50% shall be treated as consideration received on transfer of a long-term capital asset 2. The assessee, an individual, was allotted a site by the Bangalore Development Authority on the 25th May, 1972 in accordance with the relevant rules of allotment. A lease-cu...
Tag this Judgment!Sanna Peerasabi Vs. P. Peerasabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR102; 1996(5)KarLJ236
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J 1. This Petition has been filed against the order dated 20.9.1995, passed by the Principal Munsiff, Chitradurga in Original Suit No. 1168/1989, admitting the document which is alleged to be a Partition Deed.2. I have heard Shri B.M. Siddappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yatish Kumar, Advocate holding brief for Sri Kaleemullah Shariff, Counsel for the respondent.3. The learned Counsel for the revisionist - applicant has submitted before me in support of the Revision that learned Court below has acted illegally and in breach of the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act, in admitting the document which was not stamped at all in accordance with the Stamp Act and in violation of the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act. As such he submitted that the order admitting the document in evidence be set aside and the revision be allowed. Learned Counsel for the applicant further placed before me an order which is in Kannada, translat...
Tag this Judgment!Huleppa Balappa Karoshi Vs. Sub-registrar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3589; 1996(5)KarLJ605
ORDERRaveendran, J.1. Petitioner agreed to purchase land bearing R.S.No. 103, measuring 3 acres 1 gunta of Yadur village, Chikodi Taluk for a sale price of Rs. 13,000/-. As the Vendor failed to execute the Sale Deed, petitioner filed a suit for specific performance in the year 1982. During the pendency of the suit, the Vendor executed a Sale Deed dated 26.8.1985 in favour of the petitioner conveying the said land for the agreed consideration of Rs. 13,000/- in pursuance of a consent decree passed by the Civil Court.2. The said Sale Deed was presented to the Sub-Registrar, Chikodi (First Respondent) for registration on 29.8.1985. The Sub-Registrar impounded the Document on the ground that the Document was undervalued and therefore not duly stamped under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('Act' for short) read with Rule 15A of Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1958 ('Rules' for short). After verification of sale statistics and other information, the Sub-Registrar came to the conclusion th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Divya Devi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3329; [1996]217ITR824(KAR); [1996]217ITR824(Karn); 1996(40)KarLJ547
ORDERS.A. Hakeem, J. 1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') made at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no addition can be made as 'income from house property' under the provisions of ss. 22 to 26, in respect of the built up premises on the plot of land sublet by her on the premise that she cannot be held to be the owner till the Court finally decides in her favour in the action she has raised against the sub-tenant in Civil Court (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in holding that rent or compensation which the assessee is entitled to recover from the sub-tenant is chargeable only in the year of receipt since the rent income from the sub-lease is assessable under the head 'income from other sources' 2. The facts may be briefly sta...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Salgaocar Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3334; [1996]217ITR849(KAR); [1996]217ITR849(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ79
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. Tribunal, Bangalore has at the instance of the petitioner assesses referred to this Court the following three questions for opinion :'1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant's 'iron ore sizing and washing plant' did not constitute an industrial undertaking for the purposes of s. 80J of the Act and thereby rejecting the applicant's claim for relief under s. 80J of the Act in respect of the said plant 2. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that purifying and upgrading the iron ore does not amount to manufacture or production of any article for the purpose of s. 80J of the Act and thereby rejecting the appellant's claim for relief under s. 80J of the Act in respect of 'Iron ore sizing and washing plant' 3. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appell...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »