Karnataka Court September 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/S. Mohan MeakIn Limited, Simla, Himachal Pradesh and Another Vs. Sta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ6
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Despite judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7239 of 1983 decided on 30-7-1986, Writ Appeal No. 2159 of 1986, decided on 27-8-1986 and Special Leave Petition No. 12870 of 1985 on 29-4-1987, the appellants herein succeeded in getting the matter re-opened by filing a revision petition under Section 63 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') which was accepted and disposed of vide Annexure-P dated 27-12-1990. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Government of Karnataka the respondent Writ Petitioners preferred Writ Petition Nos. 5490 to 5494 of 1991 and 27338 of 1991 (Thore Salappa and Others v State of Karnataka and Others) in this Court which were allowed vide the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal. Writ Petition Nos. 6446 to 6456 of 1989 filed by the appellants were however dismissed. The action initiated, taken and completed by the authorities with respect to the lands and buildings compri...
P. Krishnappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR905
ORDERChandrashekaraih, J1. In all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 29,12.1988 published in the official gazette dated 6.4.1989 issued under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and also the notification dated 9.5.1994 published in the official gazette 18.5.1994 issued under Section 19(1) of the Act.2. The petitioners in these petitions are the owners of certain lands. The said lands were proposed for acquisition for the purpose of implementation of the scheme i.e. formation of a layout called 'Banashankari V Stage' in the notification issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the Act. In the preliminary notification the proposed extent of land measures 1851 acres 39 guntas. This was followed by a final notification issued under Section 19(1) of the Act which restricted the requirement of land to 1459 acres 21 guntas. These notifications are challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the authorities have not followe...
Mohammed Isaq and ors. Vs. Meharunnisa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: I(1998)DMC120; 1997(1)KarLJ346
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate. The principal point canvassed by him is that the Trial Court was completely in error in having held that the jurisdiction to try the present suit vests exclusively with the Family Court. Learned Advocate submits that the prayer clauses to the plaint very clearly indicate what precisely was the complexion of the cause of action as also the reliefs asked for. He points out that the petitioners have asked for a declaration that they are the legal heirs of deceased Buransaheb and the consequential reliefs are in relation to partition and rights to property etc. The main submission canvassed is that this suit is not different to any other civil proceeding that is normally required to be instituted before a Civil Court and that merely because the sister who is contesting the matter has taken up the contention that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are not the legal heirs, that the learned Judge has incorrectly referred the matter to the Fa...
M.R. Chakrapani Iyengar Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)KarLJ357
ORDER1. A very important aspect of the law relating to the obligations of banks in relation to property that is pledged or hypothecated has indirectly fallen for decision in this dispute. The main controversy concerns the question as to whether the present petitioner who was the surety for the principal borrower can be said to have discharged the liability having regard to the provisions of Section 139 of the Contract Act. The only few facts which are material arc that the principal borrower had taken a loan from the respondent-bank and was repaying it in installments. He had defaulted with regard to the clearance of the loan. At this stage, the bank decided to take action against the principal borrower as also the surety who was none other than his own brother. The surety replied to the notice pointing out that there is a small amount of money due to the bank and that the principal debtor had hypothecated the electric oven of the bakery which was worth a substantial amount of money. H...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bel Employees Death Relief Fund and Ser ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2979; [1997]225ITR270(KAR); [1997]225ITR270(Karn)
ORDERThe Court 1. In exercise of the powers vesting in it under sub-s. (1) of s. 256 of the IT Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the Tribunal, Bangalore Branch has referred the following question of law to this Court for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the objects of the assessee society fall within the purview of s. 2(15) of the IT Act and as such its income is exempt under ss. 11 and 12 of the IT Act ?' 2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case regarding which there is no dispute. The respondent-assesses filed a return income for the asst. yr. 1990-91 declaring the loss of Rs. 10,99,846. While completing the assessment the assessing authority observed that the assesses association was merely in arrangement for the benefit of the Society's own members. The members and the beneficiaries were found to be one and the same and tha...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bel Employees Death Relief Fund and Ser ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Kar)29
ORDERBY THE COURTIn exercise of the powers vesting in it under sub-s. (1) of s. 256 of the IT Act (hereinafter called the Act), the Tribunal, Bangalore Branch has referred the following question of law to this Court for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the objects of the assessee society fall within the purview of s. 2(15) of the IT Act and as such its income is exempt under ss. 11 and 12 of the IT Act ?'2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case regarding which there is no dispute. The respondent-assesses filed a return income for the asst. yr. 1990-91 declaring the loss of Rs. 10,99,846. While completing the assessment the assessing authority observed that the assesses-association was merely in arrangement for the benefit of the Society own members. The members and the beneficiaries were found to be one and the same and that the m...
Smt. Anitha Ravi Vs. C.B. Ravi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC687; 1997(1)KarLJ123
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The learned Advocates inform me that pursuant to the negotiations between the parties and their learned Advocates that they have almost arrived at certain terms which are more or less in the final stages. If the matter is ultimately resolved, that would certainly be an excellent method of disposing of the entire proceedings. As far as the present civil revision petition is concerned, the scope is therefore very limited. Respondent's learned Advocate states that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was awarded by way of costs for the litigation has been paid by his client and that nothing survives under this head. The learned Trial Judge had awarded an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month by way of interim maintenance to the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance for the son. Petitioner's learned Advocate submits that having regard to the record of this case, that both these amounts are hopelessly inadequate and that they should be conside...
Mahila Jagran Manch Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR2110
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. A letter addressed by Manila Jagran, a Society established with the intention of upholding the cause of women in various spheres of life, has been ordered to be registered as a Writ Petition. The prayers in this public interest litigation are : (a) a direction to the Second Respondent ('ABCL' for short) not to hold or host 'MISS WORLD 1996' Contest anywhere in India including Bangalore; (b) a direction to the First Respondent not to permit any of its Departments to provide any facilities or co-operation for the holding of such beauty pageant; a direction to the First Respondent to recover charges for use of the Press Conference Hall at Vidhana Soudha, from Second Respondent; and a direction to First and Second Respondents to tender an apology for announcing the event from Vidhana Soudha; (c) a direction to the Third Respondent not to allow the Second Respondent to host the Miss World Contest, in the Chinnaswamy Stadium; (d) a Writ of prohibition by issue of a...
S.V. Apparao Vs. Vijaya Bank and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas433(Kar); 1997(2)KarLJ610
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. These two C.R.Ps. involve a common point and, therefore, have been disposed of through a common order. I have heard the learned advocated on both sides. The only grievance projected by the petitioner's learned advocate is that he was a surety for the loan that was given by the bank to judgment-debtor No. 1. His contention is that the bank has straightway applied for attachment of his property and that, according to him, this is unfair because the decree becomes enforceable against him provided the bank is unable to recover its dues or unable to execute the decree against judgment-debtor No. 1. The learned advocate submits that it is not permissible in law for the bank, for whatever reason, to bypass the principal debtor and straightaway apply for the attachment of the property of the surety because this could give rise to unfair practices where, for extraneous reasons, the decree-holder-bank may choose to exonerate the principle debtor and go after the surety. The ...
Smt. Hanumakka and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1996
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ194
1. Lured by the ruling of the Supreme Court in H.M.T. House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore v Syed Khader and Others, the appellants herein had filed Writ Petition Nos. 42784 to 42796 of 1995 on 6-12-1995 praying for quashing of Annexure-A and B by which the land measuring 153 acres was acquired vide notifications issued in the year 1985, in respect of which an award was passed on 29-2-1986. Out of total 83 land owners, 13 appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground of proceedings being violative of the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.M.T.'s case, supra. Appellants are owners to the extent of 37 acres out of the total land acquired.2. The writ petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed by the learned Single Judge mainly on account of delay, laches and acquiescence attributable to them. It was found on facts that the notification proposing to acquire the lands for public purpose was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »