Karnataka Court November 1996 Judgments

Diamond Glass Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Karnataka

K. S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. By consent of the parties these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner challenges annexure G, the order passed by the first respondent.3. The facts are :The petitioner filed the returns for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 under the Income-tax Act, 1961. After the assessment orders were passed, the petitioner sought to invoke the provisions under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), under which the Commissioner is authorised to waive or reduce the interest. The Commissioner of Income-tax , Karnataka-II, passed an order under Section 273A ofthe Act on October 5, 1993, rejecting the request of the petitioner to waive interest, except for 1979-80, for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85 on the ground that though the returns of income have been filed voluntarily and the income disclosed in full, taxes on the returned income have not been fully paid, which is one of the conditions to be satis...

Gsvs Association Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2263

ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. By an order dated 12th of October 1994, the 3rd respondent-Director of Vocational Education permitted the petitioner's Pre-University College to start an additional Vocational Course in Nursing. The permission granted was restricted to the academic year 1994-95. The petitioner appears to have started the said additional course and while the same was in progress, the Government by its order dated 29th of January 1996 cancelled the permission granted. Similar permissions granted to run courses in Pharmacy and Dental Technicians were also cancelled primarily on the ground that the courses were allowed to be started without the permission of the statutory authorities concerned. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition assailing the cancellation inter alia on the ground that the course having been started pursuant to the permission granted by the Government by its order dated 11th of October 1994, the same could not have been cancelled simply...

Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3445; 1996(7)KarLJ600

ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. On being prima facie satisfied that the law laid down in MANAGEMENT OF KALPANA THEATRE v. RAVISHANKAR, : AIR1995Kant426 had ignored various provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') a Division Bench of this Court referred this matter to this Bench for authoritative pronouncement.2. In KALPANA THEATRE'S CASE, a Division Bench of this Court had held that no appeal was maintainable against the judgment or order passed by a Single Judge in petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that such appeal was maintainable only if the judgment or order was passed in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that while deciding Kalpana Theatre's case the Division Bench had not taken note of the amended provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act and Rule...

The Karnataka State Judicial Employees House Building Co-operative Soc ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. In all these petitions the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the demand relating to conversion fine payable under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act 1964) is without authority of law and the Government has no jurisdiction to demand the same and also for other reliefs.2. The petitioners are the societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act, the petitioners requested the Stated Government to initiate proceedings for acquisition of land for their benefit for the purpose of providing residential sites to its members. The State Government before initiating the proceedings called upon the societies to pay certain amount towards cost of acquisition which includes conversion fine payable under the provisions of the Act, 1964. In addition the societies are also required to pay certain amount towards establishment charges and audit charges. In these petitions the petitioners cha...

Prema Vs. Thangappan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR401; (1999)IIILLJ454Kant

M.B. Vishwanath, J.1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant.2. It is seen from the order sheet dated 25.6.96 that the Advocate who was appearing for the respondent, after issuing Notice to the respondent, has prayed this Court's permission to retire. This Court has permitted the Counsel to retire.3. It is further seen from the order sheet dated 25.6.96 that Court Notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent has been served with Court Notice and he has remained absent.4. Appeal admitted.5. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kodagu District, Madikeri on 16.3.91 in No. Kaa.Na.Pa.Kaa.32/89-90. By the impugned order, the Commissioner rejected the appellant's prayer for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.5a. The Commissioner has held that the appellant was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner, therefore, dismissed the clai...

ismail S/O Ibrahim Saval Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)523; 1997CriLJ1403; ILR1997KAR728; 1997(1)KarLJ761

1. The instant appeal is filed under Section 454 Cr.P.C. to challenge the Judgment Dt- 28-3-94 in S.C. No. 75/91 in so far as the same related to an order to return a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant in the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : That on a complaint of one Ningappa Gulappa Bisnal, examined as P.W. 1 in the case, who had filed a complaint before the Managuli Police Station as against 12 accused persons under Secs. 447,395 and 342 IPC, and the said Police had registered a case in Crime No. 13/91. It appears that during the course of investigation, a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was recovered from the appellant herein. He had also been examined as P.W. 14 before the Sessions Judge in the above case. 3. The learned Sessions Judge after completion of the trial, on hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons and on appreciation of the evidence on record, had passed the impugned judgment whereby he had acquitted the accused p...

Hanumanthegowda and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)608; ILR1997KAR719; 1997(2)KarLJ245

ORDERA.M. Farooq, J.1.Petitioners are two of the accused in Crime No. 99/96 of Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bangalore registered for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 149 IPC. The petitioners voluntarily surrendered before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and sought bail under Section 436 Cr.P.C., since all the offences alleged against them are bailable offences. The Learned Magistrate accepted the surrender of the petitioners and on consideration of the application filed by them under Section 436 Cr.P.C., they were released on bail by his Order dated 25.6.1996. While passing the Order, the Learned Magistrate has imposed certain conditions and one of the conditions is that they shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in three days for a period of three months from the next day of passing of the Order. Further the petitioners were also directed not to tamper with prosecution witnesses and they should not leave the juri...

Sri Ganesh Kanoba Waingankar Vs. Vithal Gouri Gourish Dovali

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1704

Harinath Tilhari, J.1. This is a claimant's appeal from the judgment and order (Award) dated 27th September, 1991, delivered by Sri A.C. Patil, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar) in M.V.C.No. a83 of 1988.2. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-. The claimant felt dissatisfied and therefore has come up in appeal.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant has been the victim of the Motor, vehicle accident that did take place on 18-4-1988 at about 8 p.m. in Vakkaikeri, Binaga Karwar, while he was proceeding to his residence on a bicycle along with his father. According to the claimant's case when the claimant reached Vakkalkeri along the National High way No. 17, on the date and at the time mentioned above, a lorry bearing Registration No. MYE 5778, belonging to respondent No. 2 in the claim petition as well as respondent No. 2 in the memo of appeal, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 Vithal Gouri, w...

Kasimji Muzumil Alias Md. Iqbal Vs. C. Yogesh Mallaya and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998ACJ989

Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. These two appeals arise from one common judgment and award dated 16.3.1990, delivered by the District Judge, Uttara Kannada, as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, awarding the claimant in M.V.C. No. 400 of 1988, a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and in M.V.C. No. 409 of 1988, awarding the claimant compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Kasimji Muzumil alias Md. Iqbal filed M.V.C. No. 400 of 1988 giving rise to appeal M.F.A. No. 314 of 1992, making a claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-, while the claimant in M.V.C. No. 409 of 1988, giving rise to M.F.A. No. 2746 of 1991, Jaiyauddin Hassan Tare filed a claim petition claiming the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/-, against the respondents.2. According to the facts of the case, the claimant in M.V.C. Case No. 400 of 1988, i.e., the appellant in M.F.A. No. 314 of 1992, was proceedi...

Laxman Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)578; 1997CriLJ1806; ILR1997KAR129; 1997(2)KarLJ168

1. The appellant before us was the original accused in Sessions Case No. 171/93. He was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. The charge was that on 21-2-1993 at 8 p.m. on the road in front of Mahadevappa Hundekar's house at Tadaslur Village, that he had assaulted his younger brother Basavaraj with an iron rod which assault ultimately resulted in the death of Basavaraj. The accused was originally arrested for an offence punishable under Section 325, I.P.C. which was thereafter altered to Section 302, I.P.C. after Basavaraj died. On completion to the investigation, the accused was chargesheeted and subsequently, came to be committed for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum, by his judgment and order D/- 29th December 1994, held the accused guilty of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life. The present appeal is directed against that conviction. 2. Briefly stated, the pr...