Karnataka Court January 1996 Judgments
L.N. Madali Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: [2000]119STC411(Kar)
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These petitions are directed against a common order made by the Tribunal in relation to assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The petitioner is a retail dealer. He declared total and taxable turnover as : 1987-88 1988-89 Rs. 10,31,614.17 Rs. 3,27,695.29Rs. 1,31,433 Rs. 43,415 2. The assessing officer rejected the declared turnovers on the basis that classified sales account had not been properly maintained and determined the turnovers as under : 1987-88 1988-89 Rs. 10,43,402 Rs. 3,29,500Rs. 1,52,682 Rs. 47,350 3. Aggrieved by that assessment order the petitioner preferred appeals before the appellate authority unsuccessfully and the matter was carried on to the Tribunal and the Tribunal also having dismissed the same, the petitioner has preferred these petitions. 4. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are that : (1) The assessing authority was not justified in rejecting the account books and other material furnished by the petitioner pursuan...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitha Kemparaj Urs Vs. K.S. Devapal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1419; 1996(1)KarLJ545
Vishwanath, J. Admitted. Heard on merits.1. The tenant has filed this Revision Petition against the landlord-respondent (since deceased by L.Rs. ) challenging the order dated 26-8-1993 passed by the 16th Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore City, allowing the eviction petition filed by the landlord (respondent herein) on the grounds under Section 21 (1) (a) (arrears of rent), 21 (1) (h) (reasonable and bonafide requirement) and under Section 21 (1) (p) (acquiring suitable premises) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short 'the K.R.C. Act') ordering eviction of the present revision petitioner-tenant.2. In this Court the learned Counsel for respondent-landlord submitted that he would not press the ground under Section 21 (1) (a) of the K.R.C. Act. So I will summarise the pleading only in regard to Section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the K.R.C.Act.3. The parties will be referred to by their ranks in the Court below. The petitioner means the landlord (present respondent), the respondent m...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman and ors. Vs. Susheela Chand Choudary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC427; 1996ACJ1265; ILR1996KAR2337; 1996(3)KarLJ570
G.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. The deceased was aged 19 years. He was a Pre-University Student. While he was proceeding on the bicycle on 9-8-1989 at about 8-55 a.m., a goods lorry bearing registration No. ADT 5495 driven in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the cycle. The lorry ran over the deceased who died at the spot. The claimants are his parents and his minor sister.2. The mother of the deceased i.e., the second appellant has given evidence as P.W.1. In her evidence she has stated that her son was earning while studying and he was bringing home Rs. 600/- per month by giving private tuition. She has deposed that the deceased had the desire to do Post-graduation, in which event he would have contributed not less than Rs. 1,500/- per month for the maintenance of the family. On that basis, the claimants claimed Rs. 4,50,000/- for loss of dependency. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed for loss of estate; an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs. 25,00...
Tag this Judgment!Combined Industries Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR822
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This revision petition filed under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the State Act') is directed against the order dated February 14, 1992, passed by the Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 150 0f 1990.2. The petitioner-company is manufacture of automotive chains. For the assessment year 1982-83 it had filed its return of Central Sales tax on April 30, 1983. The assessing authority, after rejecting the book figure, subjected the petitioner to a best judgment assessment order dated January 17, 1989 under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 12(5) of the State Act.3. The petitioner challenged the said assessment before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and then went to the Tribunal but having failed at both the stages, the present revision has been preferred.4. The sole contention raised by Mr. B. P. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the impugned assessment order ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Moses Dindannavar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC325; 1996ACJ938; ILR1995KAR965; 1996(2)KarLJ80
Mohammed Anwar, J. 1. This Appeal of the Insurance Company is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 3.10.1989 of MACT II, Chitradurga, challenging its finding that appellant is also liable to pay compensation to respondent No. 1 claimant as awarded by it.2. Respondent No. 1's (claimant's) case that on 13.7.1984 at about 3.30 a.m. when he was travelling in the said lorry bearing registration No. MYE 4628 belonging to respondent No. 3 herein (R3 for short) transporting 5 bags of coconuts from Hiriyur to Chitradurga, the lorry met with accident due to negligent driving by its driver respondent No. 2 (R2 for short) and in that accident he suffered bodily injuries, has been accepted by the Tribunal in the light of claimant's evidence adduced before it. The fact that respondent No. 1 suffered bodily injuries in the said accident, which resulted due to negligent driving of the lorry by R2 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that he was travelling in the said lorry at the time...
Tag this Judgment!India Trade Promotion Organisation and anr. Vs. Smt. M. Usha Ramaprasa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3474; 1996(7)KarLJ619
Mohamed Anwar, J.1. This appeal by M/s. India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi is directed against the order dated October 14, 1993 of the Learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 2182/93 allowing the Writ Petition of respondent Smt. M. Usha Ramaprasad and directing appellant to consider her application for appointment on compassionate grounds to any suitable post within two months.2. The argument of Learned Counsel on both sides are heard.3. The appellant is a Public Undertaking under Ministry of Commerce. Indisputably, the respondent's husband was working as Deputy Regional Manager in the appellant organisation at Bangalore and he met with an accident and died on 31.12.1992 while in service. He left behind his respondent-widow and a son who was aged 13 years. The respondent, who is a Science Graduate, gave her representation to the appellant organisation seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on the death of her husband. Her said representation was rejected by appellant b...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Government of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1996
Reported in: 2004(166)ELT437(Kar); ILR1999KAR2910; 1997(42)KarLJ113
M.L. Pendse, C.J.1. The appellant is the dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') having its registered office at Bombay and regional office at Bangalore. The appellant had filed returns for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 and the assessments were complete on February 29, 1992 and September 26, 1992 respectively. The assessments were completed on the basis of the appellant being entitled to the benefit of notification dated February 28, 1987 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Act. The notification inter alia provided that the rate of tax payable on the sales of cement made in the course of inter-State trade or commerce stands reduced from 15% to 2%.2. On January 12, 1988 Supreme Court delivered the judgment reported in the Indian Cement and Others v. State of Andhm Pradesh and Others : [1988]2SCR574 . The Supreme Court was examining the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and wh...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Babu Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant339; ILR1996KAR1797; 1996(3)KarLJ168
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. The Constitution of India was amended so as to introduce into it Part IX and IXA by Constitution (73rd and 74th Amendment) Act, 1992 to provide local self-Government a status of constitutional entity and to regulate certain main provisions such as Constitution, composition, reservation of scats, qualification for membership, financial relations and elections thereto.2. Pursuant to the said amendments to the Constitution, the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 came to be amended to bring the same in conformity with the said constitutional amendments. In part IX A of the Constitution, Municipalities are dealt with. Article 243 provides that there shall be constituted in every State - (i) a town Panchayat for a transitional area i.e., an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area (ii) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and (in) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area. Such Municipality is constituted as the Governor may, havin...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Ajjikuttira Poovaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1940; ILR1996KAR1101; 1996(2)KarLJ229
1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kodagu District, Madikeri acquitting the accused persons of the charges u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 & 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case was that on 31-5-1987 at about 4 p.m. when PW-1 was going in Nagarahole Forest for bringing firewood, the two accused persons shared common intention of murdering PW-1 Javara and that in pursuance of that common intention A-1 fired a shot from M.O. 1 - gun causing grievous injury to PW-1 and that A-1 had no license to possess the gun. 3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in support of its case. The gist of the prosecution case as disclosed in the evidence is as hereunder : On 31-5-1987 at about 4 p.m. PW-1 went inside Nagarahole forest to bring firewood. A-1 & A-2 were in the forest and A-1 who was armed with a gun asked PW-1 to stop. But PW-1 started running. Then A-1 fired from the gun. PW-1 sustained injuries on his back and other parts of the body. PW-1 ran t...
Tag this Judgment!Shamarao Jahagirdar Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1306; 1996(2)KarLJ266
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. Heard petitioners' learned Advocate and the learned Advocate who represents the University, On behalf of the respondents, a request has been conveyed that some further time be granted to place on record a formal reply, Had there been any need, I would have certainly granted the request of the learned Advocate. However, the Petitions involve only one clear cut point of law which to my mind does not require any factual reply. The learned Advocates have made their submissions with regard to the merits of the matter.2. The issue in dispute is that the petitioners were students of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore doing their M.Sc (Agrl) Degree and they completed the same in the year 1994-95. They have set out a detailed narration of their academic careers and their professional achievements and I find from this that these were all top of the grade students. According to them, having regard to the grades obtained by them also their career record that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »