Karnataka Court June 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.
M. Maleyadri @ Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)54; ILR1996KAR2748; 1996(3)KarLJ629
Eswara Prasad, J.1. This appeal is by the accused in S.C.No. 136/1993 in the Court of the XXI Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, convicting him for offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and imposing sentence to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years respectively. The appellant was charged for committing the murder of Rama Rao on 18.12.1992 by intentionally causing his death by hitting him with boulder stones on his head and by stabbing him on his neck punishable under Section 302 IPC and for causing disappearances of the dead body of the deceased punishable under Section 201 IPC. He was also charged with attempting to commit murder of PW.37 on 19.1.1993 under Section 307 IPC for abducting PW.37 punishable under Section 364 and for robbery of PW.37 of her gold ornaments punishable under Section 394 IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and PW.37 were working in Sinclair TV. Factory and became intimate with each other. The appellant, while...
The Residents of Mico Layout Ii Stage Vs. J.S.S. Mahavidyapeetha and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR705; 1997(4)KarLJ442
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. Petitioners are the residents of MICO Colony which was formed by the MICO Employees' House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore. The challenge in this Writ Petition is the allotment of CA2 site to the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has sanctioned a layout plan viz., MICO layout, submitted by the society as per Annexure-B. The said society formed the layout as required under Bangalore Development Authority Act and Rules and Regulations and also according to Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). It is their case that the society has earmarked 2 CA sites for play ground for the use of the resident of the layout which are identified as CA2 and CA3 in the sanction plan. These 2 CA sites constitute 166900 sq.ft. which is about 12.88% of the total land of 29 acres and 34 guntas or 1300266 sq.ft. It is their specific case that a major portion of CA2 is earmarked as play ground for the use of the residents of the layout and the porti...
Balaji Finance Corporation Vs. Mohammed Sab and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3429; 1996(6)KarLJ272
M.B. Vishwanath, J.1. This is plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiff, M/s Balaji Finance Corporation (Regd.) a partnership firm, filed a suit O.S.No. 565/ 1990 on the file of the Additional Munsiff at Arasikere against the two defendants on the footing of the pro-note Ex.P-6 dated 12.1.1988 said to have been executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.2. The execution of the pro-note is admitted by the defendants.3. The learned Additional Munsiff decreed the suit.4. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, preferred appeal R.A.No. 43/1993 before the learned Civil Judge, Arasikere. The learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.5. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on two grounds. The first ground was that the firm was not registered on the date of the suit. The suit was fifed on 18.12.1990.6. The Money-lending Licence Ex.P-3 has been renewed by the concerned authorities on 16.6.1988, Ex.P-3 has...
Smt. Severine D'Souza Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3552; 1996(7)KarLJ522
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. This petition is directed against the order dated 4.9.1995, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A, passed by the second respondent confirming the order dated 6.2.1992, the copy of which has been produced at Annexure-B, passed by the first respondent declaring the sale of land measuring 3 cents situated at Kadri-B Village, Mangalore Taluk, by means of a registered sale deed dated 25.8.1988 made by the husband of the third respondent as null and void and further directing that the said land is resumed to the Government.2. Though this petition is posted for preliminary hearing, Sri M. Siddagangaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for Respondents 1 and 2 and also requested to appear as Amicus Curiae for the third respondent taking into account that the direction of notice to the third respondent is likely to cause financial loss and hardship to her. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and ...
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-cum-entry Tax (Assessment-i ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3000
1. These appeals are filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-cum-Entry Tax as also the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore, against the judgment of a learned single Judge dated July 23, 1992 in Writ Petition No. 4878 of 1988 and connected cases. The question involved in these appeals is as to whether 'ball-bearings' would come within the purview of entry 7 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act as amended by Act 38 of 1984 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1982. Assessment years in question are from 1982-83 to 1986-87.2. The writ petitioners in these cases are dealers in machinery parts and in the course of their business, they import ball-bearings into local area and thereafter sell the same. The appellants levied taxes on ball-bearings under the Act holding that it is covered by entry 7 of the Schedule to the Act. In making assessment as above, the assessing authorities have relied on a circular issued by the Commissioner a...
Karnataka Electricity Board and anr. Vs. Shah Kanji Devji Oil Mills
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2916; 1996(3)KarLJ585
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This petition is the companion petition to C.R.P.NO. 2934/1993, See Editorial Note Supra which has been disposed of by the Court today. The plaintiffs who are the respondents to this petition had instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Hubli against the K.E.B. who are the petitioners before me praying for certain reliefs which essentially centered around a challenge to the action on the part of the K.E.B. in having disconnected the power supply to the plaintiffs rice mill. Whereas the K.E.B. contended that there were allegations of theft of electric power aggregating to over Rs. 6 lakhs against the plaintiffs 'unit, the defendants' contended that the allegations were unjustified and groundless. Basically, they pleaded before the Court that no notice was served on them, that this was a flagrant breach of the rules of natural justice and that therefore the power should be reconnected. The Trial Court granted this relief which came to be confirmed by the ...
K. Lakshmipathy Vs. Channaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3351; 1996(6)KarLJ266
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned Advocates. This is a revision directed against a judgment of the Court of Small Causes in a suit for recovery of money. The plaintiff who is the respondent before me is a money lender and he had advanced to the present petitioner who was the original defendant a sum of Rs. 6,000/- on 31.5.86. It is unnecessary for me to deal with the controversy relating to whether the loan was repaid or not because the defendant contended that he had given certain post dated cheques from time to time to the plaintiff and that these have been encashed by him whereas the plaintiff denied these apart from one for which the learned Judge has given credit. There is a dear finding against the defendant to the effect that no other amount of the loan was repaid. The suit was therefore decreed for Rs. 8113/- with costs, interest etc.2. The petitioner's learned Advocate has advanced certain submissions which essentially boil down to only one aspect namely that the conclusi...
Manohar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ398; ILR1996KAR3419; 1996(7)KarLJ503
1. The trial Court found the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. in its judgment and order dated 21-4-90 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for a period of 18 months. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga in S.C. No. 6/89, dated 21-4-1990, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal. 2. The facts of the case very briefly are :- The accused Manohar and the complainant Nagaraj P.W. 2 belong to the same age group and they were classmates in school and were friends. The said accused Manohar used to visit the house of P.W. 2 and also the cycle shop that was run by the family members of P.W. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when the accused-Manohar was visiting the cycle shop that was being run by the family members of P.W. 2, he was committing some petty thefts. This came to the knowledge of the ...
SaifuddIn and Co. Vs. Bhanu Loha Shilpa (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2500; 1996(3)KarLJ219
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. The petitioner had preferred the above C.R.P. for challenging the Judgment and Decree date 29.2.92 in S.C.No. 3681/90 passed by the Court of Small Causes (SCCH 11) Bangalore, whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 9,000/- together with costs and interest was dismissed.2. The matter has come up for final hearing. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the decisions cited before me in support of the rival contentions put forth.3. The short question in this petition is whether it was just and proper for the Court of the Small Causes (SCCH No. 11), Bangalore (for short hereinafter referred to as Court below), to dismiss the suit of the petitioner holding that the same is not in consonance with Section 69(2) of Indian Partnership Act. It is on that point of law alone, the Court below had dismissed the suit of the petitioner.4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent - company purch...
Mahammad HussaIn Dabahayatsab Mulla and ors. Vs. the Charity Commissio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3222; 1996(6)KarLJ579
ORDERT.S. Thakur, J.1. Two questions fall for consideration in this Writ Petition. These are:- (i) Whether the Charity Commissioner can in exercise of his powers under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act grant permission to sell the Trust property subject to a condition as to the minimum price at which the sale should be effected and (ii) If the power is so available has the same been exercised properly in the context of the facts of the present case.2. The questions arise in the following backdrop:Guru Viraktha Mutt Rayanal is a Registered Public Trust which owns certain properties in Hubli Town of the District of Dharwad. The peetadikari of the Trust appears to have filed an application before the Charity Commissioner at Belgaum under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act seeking his permission to sell the property underlying C.T.S. No. 1531, 1532, 1533, 1534. This application was allowed by the Charity Commissioner by his order dated 30.10.1982 subject interalia to the co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »