Karnataka Court June 1996 Judgments
Ramu Alias Dharya and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT(Cri)798; 1996CriLJ4204; 1996(3)KarLJ562
ORDER1. These are Habeas Corpus petitions filed by the accused persons who are undergoing trial for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in various Sessions Courts in Karnataka. It is their case that they were arrested initially in Cr. No. 64 of 1987 of Golgumbas Police Station, Bijapur by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bijapur on 27-7-1987 and they were charge sheeted for the offence of decoity in 23 cases punishable under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C. It is their main grievance that though the petitioners were arrested on 27-7-1987 and continued to be in Judicial Custody, there is no progress in the case and the trial is not yet commenced in many cases. It is further submitted that out of 23 cases, 12 cases ended in acquittal and they were convicted in one case S.C. 29 of 1989 on the file if the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tumkur, for a period 7 years which was later modified by this court to 5 years rigorous imprisonmen...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Murthy and anr. Vs. B. Mangilal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1189
ORDERM.B. Vishwanath, J.1. This revision petition under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') has been filed by the two petitioners-landlords, who are the mother and son against the respondent-tenant challenging the order dated 27.9.1993 passed in H.R.C.No. 1230/ 1988 on the file of the V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City. The learned H.R.C. Judge dismissed the eviction petition filed by the petitioners under Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Act.2. The petition schedule premises is a shop (non-residential) forming part and parcel of premises Nos. 8 and 9 situate at T.N. Shetty Lane, Avenue Road Cross, Bangalore 560 053.3. The petitioners' case is :The respondent took the premises on lease from the father of the first petitioner (Gopalakrishna) under a lease deed dated 21.11.1980 on a monthly rent of Rs. 495/-. The respondent has been carrying on business on the petition schedule premises. The petition schedule shop was allotted to th...
Tag this Judgment!N. Guddappa Poojary Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Puttur and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1009; 1997(2)KarLJ497
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J1. Resolution dated 8th December 1995, passed by Balpa Grama Panchayat, removing the petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha of the said Panchayat is called in question in this Writ Petition. The petition also seeks a mandamus directing the Assistant Commissioner, to declare that Respondents No. 3 and 4, have ceased to be Members of the Grama Panchayat or in the alternative for a direction to consider and dispose of the application filed by him in that regard.2. Heard.3. In so far as challenge to Resolution dated 8th of December, 1995 removing the petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha on the basis of a no confidence motion against him is concerned, the only ground of attack urged is that two of the members of the Panchayat namely Respondents-3 and 4 had ceased to be Members on account of their having remained absent in more than three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Grama Panchayat without leave of the said Panchayat, as also on account of their remaining abs...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaraju Vs. Laxminarasaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1191; ILR1996KAR3548; 1996(7)KarLJ390
C.N. Aswathanarayana Rao, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is regarding the liability of the second respondent to pay the compensation amount determined to the appellant-petitioner.2. For the purpose of convenience, I will refer to the parties to this appeal by the positions they have occupied in the Trial Court.3. The petitioner, who was an employee under N.V. Somashekaraiah in his lorry bearing No. CNJ 4025, sustained injuries in an accident dated 22.8.1992 involving the said lorry. On 7.1.1993 Somashekaraiah transferred the lorry to the first respondent. The second respondent is the insurer. The Commissioner for Workmeh's Compensation passed the impugned order awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,05,895/- but without any interest and directed the first respondent to pay the said amount to the claimant. The authority held that the second respondent is not liable to pay the amount to the claimant. The reasoning of the Commissioner is as follows:-'The Insur...
Tag this Judgment!B.T. Patil and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Kar)77; ILR1996KAR2715; [1997]224ITR431(KAR); [1997]224ITR431(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ305
Raveendran, J. 1. This is a reference under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958 (Act, for short). The facts leading to the reference are briefly as follows : 1.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm with five partners (mother and four sons) carrying on business as civil engineering contractors. The firm owned several moveable assets (machinery). On 9th July, 1977, certain debits were made to the respective accounts of the five partners with the firm (i.e., Rs. 21,454, Rs. 22,981, Rs. 31,234, Rs. 22,370 and Rs. 27,996 aggregating to Rs. 1,26,035) stated to be the value of certain machinery distributed by the firm to the partners. While some machineries were given to the partners individually, one machine was given to all the five partners to be held by them jointly as co-owners. As a result, the firm ceased to be the owner of said machinery and the five partners became the owners of the machinery so distributed either individually or as co-owners. Shortly thereafter the five partners of the p...
Tag this Judgment!D.N. Venkatarayappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR850
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J1. The petitioners, in these petitions, have challenged the order dated 23.3.1993 passed by the second respondent, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-K, confirming the order dated 22.4.1989 passed by the third respondent, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G, declaring the sale of the lands bearing Survey No. 140 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas, Survey No. 141 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas, Survey No. 142 measuring 2 acres 18 guntas and Survey No. 48/11 measuring 2 acres, situated at Champalli village, Ronur Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, as null and void and directing that the possession of the said lands should be recovered from the petitioners and handed over to respondents 4 to 7.2. Sri U.L. Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri G.R. Lakshmipathi Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, made three submissions in support of his contentions that the order impugned are totally illegal and they are ...
Tag this Judgment!Padamanna Hanamant Hadagali @ Pujari and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT(Cri)873; ILR1996KAR2622; 1996(3)KarLJ732
M.P. Chinnappa, J.1. As many as 8 accused persons stood their trial before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in S.C.No. 178/93 for the alleged offences Under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324 r/w 149 IPC. in connection with an incident alleged to have taken place at 8.30 P.M. on 27.8.93 in Hattalli village near the house of Shivanna Jiddi 10 Kms. away from Chadachana Police Station resulting in the death of one Dundappa Devendrappa Poojari and injuring the complainant P.W.1.2. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A-1 and A-2 for the offence Under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 IPC. and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. However, A-3 to A-8 were held not guilty and they were acquitted. As against the conviction A-1 and A-2 preferred appeal in Cr.A. 289/95 and the State has preferred Cr.A. 844/95 against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting A-3 to A-8 for the aforesaid offences. Since these two appeals are arising out of a single judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Trading Co. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2428
ORDERMr. G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioner-firm carries on business in old and second hand empty glass bottles and tins at Bangalore. It is a registered dealer under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax, 1957 (in short 'the Act').2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the notice of demand date 16.1.1990 demanding payment of Rs.48,908/- for the year ending 31.3.1989 under Annexure-B and notice of demand date 16.1.1990 demanding payment of Rs.4,373/- from July 1989 to November 1989, under Annexure-C and to quash the endorsement date 2.3.1990 on the ground that no tax could have been levied or demanded in respect of second hand empty bottles, keeping in view the Judgment of this Court in the case of G. SUBRAMANYA REDDY & CO. v. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and Ors., STRP 125/1991 disposed on 11.1.1985, wherein it was held that since the bottles were subjected to single point tax, the sale of second hand bottles cannot be subjected to tax over again for the second...
Tag this Judgment!M. Dakshina Murthy Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3216; 1996(6)KarLJ664
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J.1. The petitioner is the son of late Muniyappa who was working in the respondent Bank as a Godown Keeper. The said Muniyappa passed away on 13.3.1979 while he was in service. His wife also passed away 3 days thereafter. They left behind them four sons who were all minors then. One Venkataramaiah, the brother of Muniyappa addressed a letter to the 4th respondent Bank on June 18, 1979, informing that his brother Muniyappa died on 13.3.1979 due to heart attack; His wife also died on 16.3.1979; They had four children, viz., M.D. Murthy, M.D. Rudresh, M. Muralidhar and M. Renuka Prasad. As the said children of late Muniyappa have not attained the age of 18 years, he requested to enroll their names for appointment in the Bank on compassionate grounds as and when they attain the age of majority. M. Rudresh is the first son of late Muniyappa. The petitioner is the second son.2. The petitioner after attaining majority appear to have filed an application on 10.10.1992 seek...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. KrishnammA. I and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3469; 1996(7)KarLJ614
P. Krishna Moorthy, J.1. W.A. No. 35-45/94 arises out of a common judgment in W.P.No. 5869-5879/93, : ILR1993KAR3510 W.A. No. 1909/94 is against the judgment in W.P. No. 15244/94.2. The writ petitioners in all these writ petitions are Small Rubber Growers who were advanced loans by the first respondent-Syndicate Bank under an agreement produced as Annexure-A in W.P. Nos. 5869-5879/93. An agreement entered into by all the writ petitioners are of the same nature and they were executed between the year 1984 to 1986. The agreement provides for the payment schedule as also the Time schedule for re-payment under the agreement. There is gestation of period of seven years for the payment of interest due on the first seven years. The question involved is as to whether under the agreement the writ petitioners are liable to pay simple interest on deferred interest or whether they are liable to pay compound interest on deferred interest.3. According to the petitioners, as per the prayer in the Wri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »