Karnataka Court October 1996 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.
Ramachandra Bhimappa Murgod and anr. Vs. Sushila and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR40; 1997(1)KarLJ61
M.B. Vishwanath, J.1.This appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been filed by defendants-1 and 2 against plaintiffs-2 to 4. Plaintiff-1 is since deceased.2. The first plaintiff is the mother. Plaintiffs-2 to 4 are the daughters of the first plaintiff. They filed the suit before the Principal Munsiff, Dharawad, against six defendants for partition and separate possession of their shares.3. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit and granted the plaintiffs 1/3 share in the suit schedule properties.4. Defendants-1 and 2, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, preferred appeal before the Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad. The appeal preferred by defendants-1 and 2 was dismissed. Defendants-1 and 2 have filed the present second appeal.5. The suit properties are 3 items (a), (b) and (c). Items (a) and (b) are residential buildings.6. In this case it is necessary to set out the family pedigree which is as follows: Bhimappe (prcpositus) (Died in 1940) Wife Smt. ...
Mysore Manufacturers and Traders (Mmt) Vs. Karnataka Elect. Board (Keb ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant210; ILR1997KAR176
1. The appellant who is the defendant in the lower Court is aggrieved by an order of temporary injunction granted by the lower court restraining him and the arbitrator who is the 2nd defendant in the lower Court from taking any further action pursuant to the notice dated 30-10-1995 issued in case No. 3/95 on the file of the arbitrator either by filing the alleged award in the Civil Court or taking any further action under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, pending disposal of the suit.2. The appellant which is a small scale industry had entered into an agreement with the respondent/plaintiff for supply of power to its unit. According to the appellant though the respondent had to instal 200 amps fuses in the pole while supplying the power, only 100 amps fuses were put as a result of which the imported Dixon plant could not be run properly. It is stated that the respondent had illegally disconnected the power supply. There were several litigations between the parties reference to which i...
Sapthagiri Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: [2003]133STC191(Kar)
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Finding that the petitioner has been guilty of suppression and after forming an opinion that the return of turnover filed by the petitioner in form No. 4 of the year ending March 31, 1988 was incorrect and incomplete, the assessing authority issued a proposition notice to the petitioner in terms of Sections 12(3), 12(4) and 12-B(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the proposed best judgment assessment. Petitioner was further called upon to adduce evidence if any, failing which it was to be presumed that the assessee had no objection to the proposed assessment. After considering the reply furnished and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, the assessing authority vide his assessment order dated March 31, 1990 (annexure-C) ordered that the petitioner-assessee shall be assessed to a tax of Rs. 1,10,87,708 for the period from April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1988 ...
Sapthagiri Enterprises Vs. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3451
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Finding that the petitioner has been guilty of suppression and after forming an opinion that the return of turnover filed by the petitioner in Form No. 4 of the year ending 31.3.1988 was incorrect and incomplete, the Assessing Authority issued a proposition notice to the petitioner in terms of Sections 12(3), 12(4) and 12-B(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the proposed Best Judgment Assessment. Petitioner was further called upon to adduce evidence if any, failing which it was to be presumed that the assessee had no objection to the proposed assessment. After considering the reply furnished and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, the assessing authority vide his Assessment Order dated 31.3.90 (Annex-C) ordered that the petitioner - assessee shall be assessed to a tax of Rs. 1,10,87,708/ - for the period from 1.4.87 to 31.3.88 under Section 12(3) of t...
Sakeenal Beevi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1582; 1997(57)ECC55; ILR1996KAR3118; 1996(7)KarLJ102
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. In these petitions the Preventive Detention Order dated 7-10-95 of Zalim Shah, Ibrahim Raja Mohammad, Ismail Sheik Dawood, Khader Moideen Nagoor Gani, and Khadar Batcha Kararuddin, from whom foreign currency worth Rs. 1,61,95,908/- was recovered is sought to be quashed solely on the ground of non-consideration of their representations. 2. In their reply the Respondent-State of Karnataka have denied the receipt of any representation allegedly sent on behalf of the detenues. However, respondent 2, Union of India, have acknowledged the receipt of representation but submitted that the same could not be decided on account of its being in Tamil language. It is contended that considerable time was consumed in obtaining the translation of the representation from the appropriate authorities. In W.P. No. 75/ 1996 and 76/1996 the representation of the detenus is stated to have been received on 15-1-1996 which was allegedly sent to the authorities for getting it translated into...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›