Karnataka Court September 1995 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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Leelavathi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1995
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC609
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. These appeals are by the Insurance Company challenging the finding and order of the Tribunal fixing its liability in respect of the accident.2. It is not disputed that the vehicle involved in the accident, namely, CAK 1887, was insured for the period 8.11.1986 to7.11.1987. The accident in question occurred on 11.3.1987, out of which several claims by the passengers travelling in the said vehicle have arisen. The contention taken by the appellant before the Tribunal as well as in this appeal is that since the bus in question did not have a valid permit to ply on the road, there is violation of the terms of the policy, and as such, no liability can be foisted upon it in respect of the accident involving the vehicle. The copy of the Insurance policy, which is not disputed is produced and marked as Ex.R-1 through RW-1. Under the head limitations as to use it is stated, inter alia, thus:Use only under a Contract carriage or stage carriage permit within the meaning of the M...
God Granites Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR283; 1996(41)KarLJ640
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner is an exporter of cut and dressed granite (unpolished). According to petitioner, it selects and marks the quarrying area/rock, cuts the rock by burner/bore cutting, drills holes and after blasting, removes the blocks and exports the granite in an unpolished condition. In regard to the asst. yr. 1993-94, petitioner filed a return claiming deduction of the profit derived by the export of such unpolished granite from the total income under s. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). Petitioner contended that the material so exported is 'rock' falling under Item (x) of the Twelfth Schedule to the Act and thus the benefit of deduction under s. 80HHC was available. In response to the said return, the Assessing Officer (AO) (fourth respondent) sent an intimation dt. 31st March, 1995 (Annexure C) under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act regarding the total income, tax and interest payable by the petitioner, disallowing the deduction claimed under s. 80HHC. In...
Alla Baksh Vs. Mohd. Hussain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1340; 1996(2)KarLJ336
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal from the Judgment decree dated 7.8.1983, delivered by the Civil Judge, Gulbarga, in Regular Appeal (Civil) No. 216/1981, which had also been preferred by the plaintiff -appellant, challenging the Judgment and decree dated 15.9.1981, delivered by the Munsiff, Chittapur, in Original Suit O.S. No. 74/1978, dismissing the plaintiff's first Civil (Regular) Appeal affirming the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's claim in the suit for redemption of mortgage.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff - appellant filed the suit for redemption of the suit property alleging that his father had mortgaged the property in suit with the 1st defendant -respondent No. 1, with possession for a mortgage consideration loan amount of Rs. 500/-, sometimes in the year 1960, after executing a deed, on a stamp paper with a condition that whenever mortgage amount is paid, the 1st defendant - respondent No. 1,...
God Granites Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR298(KAR); [1996]218ITR298(Karn); [1996]85TAXMAN536(Kar)
ORDERR. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. :The petitioner is an exporter of cut and dressed granite (unpolished). According to petitioner, it selects and marks the quarrying area/rock, cuts the rock by burner/bore cutting, drills holes and after blasting, removes the blocks and exports the granite in an unpolished condition. In regard to the asst. yr. 1993-94, petitioner filed a return claiming deduction of the profit derived by the export of such unpolished granite from the total income under s. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961 (Act for short). Petitioner contended that the material so exported is rock falling under Item (x) of the Twelfth Schedule to the Act and thus the benefit of deduction under s. 80HHC was available. In response to the said return, the Assessing Officer (AO) (fourth respondent) sent an intimation dt. 31st March, 1995 (Annexure C) under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act regarding the total income, tax and interest payable by the petitioner, disallowing the deduction claimed under s. 80HHC. In the...
Kajal Kumar Das Vs. Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1995
Reported in: 1995(6)KarLJ295; (1998)IIILLJ724Kant
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. The petitioner before the Court is an employee of the Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as 'the KIL'). Disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against him on an allegation that he has committed theft of the company's property. There is also a prosecution pending against the petitioner and the two reliefs that have been prayed for are that the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed until disposal of the criminal prosecution and, secondly, that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner on the ground that the criminal proceedings are pending should be reviewed.2. The petitioner's learned advocate has advanced an usual plea that if the petitioner disclosers his defense in the departmental proceedings that the witnesses who are common will be forewarned and that, therefore, he will be prejudiced in his defense in the criminal trial wherein an adverse verdict could result in a jail sentence. She further submits that the Court of...
Ravindranath Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, M.E.i. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR454
ORDERSaldanha, J. 1. Heard petitioners' learned Advocate and the respondents' learned Advocate. This case is very seriously contested by the respondents, the Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'M.E.I'. The controversy is within a narrow ambit in so far as the seven petitioners who are officers of the Company claim that they were promoted to higher posts of Deputy Manager with effect from 18.10.93 and that this position was confirmed by the Company. They claim the higher emoluments, they represented several times and thereafter moved this Court for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay them the higher emoluments with effect from that date with other consequential benefits. The respondents have seriously disputed the grant of any relief and their contention is that after the action of 18.10.1993, that certain improprieties and irregularities in relation to the decision to promote and the manner in which this was done surfaced and that the mana...
Jayanthilal Sampathraj JaIn Vs. Noor Mohamed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2794; 1995(6)KarLJ84
ORDERShivaprakash, J.1. This Revision is directed against the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner purporting to be under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.2. The decree under execution was obtained by the first respondent decree-holder, in an eviction proceeding instituted by him on 11.12.1980 under Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). Since the second respondent judgment-debtor represented by the father of the petitioner herein, after filing its statement of objections remained absent, the Court on 8.12.1983 passed a considered order of eviction placing the second respondent ex parte. The second respondent filed Misc. Petition 901/83 in the trial Court to have the said ex parte order set aside.2a. On 18.4.1984 the second respondent also filed Revision Petition No. 1491/84 before this Court questioning the legality and correctness of the exparte order of eviction without ...
The Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Sub. Divn. Shimoga and Another Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant160; 1995(4)KarLJ460
ORDERSadashiva, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5-10-1989 passed by the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 16201 of 1989 and remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law, solely on theground that there is no power reserved to the appellate Authority to go into the merits of the appeal for the non-appearance of the appellant on the date of hearing.2. The appellants in this appeal are the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the purchaser and the grantee respectively, of the granted land. It is seen from the proceedings that the grantee against whom the order is made by the learned single Judge, has not filed any appeal. The Authorities appear to have filed this appeal only with a view to get the legal position stated as to the power of the appellate Authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled. Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Cer...
JaIn Industrial Corporation and Another Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3092
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the assessment orders pertaining to the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89 (annexures A and B to the respective writ petitions) to the extent of levy of turnover tax under the provisions of section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Petitioners are the proprietorship concerns. They are engaged in the manufacture of household plastic goods. For the purpose of manufacturing finished products they buy plastic scraps from unregistered dealers. In view of two notifications dated July 31, 1985 and March 7, 1986 (annexures C and D) issued by the State Government under section 8A of the Act granting exemption of tax on purchase of 'plastic scraps' and sale of 'plastic wares' by the manufacturers, petitioners were not liable to levy of either purchase tax or sales tax on their raw materials and finished goods. Nonetheless, since no exemption had been granted in respect of tu...
M. Abbas, Dakshina Kannada Vs. the State of Karnataka, Dakshina Kannad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT(Cri)228; 1996CriLJ317; ILR1995KAR2784; 1995(5)KarLJ641
Mirdhe, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants - accused against the judgment dated 29th January, 1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, D. K. Mangalore, convicting the appellants-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 394 read with S. 34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 read with S. 34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to seven years R.I. each for the offences under Sections 392 and 394 I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for each of the two counts for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 394 read with S. 34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine amount sentenced them to undergo S.I. for six months each. 2. We have heard Sri P. M. Nawaz for Sri Pavin, learned counsel for the appellants - accused and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State fully and perused the records of the case. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows :- That the three appellants and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »