Karnataka Court February 1997 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.
State of Karnataka Vs. Firoz @ Jaggur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1419
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor at some length in this case.2. This is a case in which the accused who was then aged 20 years, had been pestering the deceased Mumtaz to marry him. Mumtaz was virtually a child being hardly 14 years old and she did not respond to the pressure which the accused was putting on her. The accused is alleged to have thereupon doused her with kerosene and set fire to her clothes. Mumtaz sustained extensive burn injuries covering 95% of her body, she was taken to hospital in a precarious condition and she died after about one day. The prosecution alleges that PW 5 Bhagyamma was one of the first to come there and Bhagyamma has very clearly mentioned in her Police statement that she saw the accused running away from that place. According to her, the deceased stated to her that it was the accused who had set fire to her clothes. Bhagyamma has retailed to some extent from her statement. This is nothing unusual becaus...
Kum. Manjamma and ors. Vs. Shanthappa @ Hippargi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1997
Reported in: II(1998)ACC625
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. All these appeals arise out of the common Judgment I Award dated 23rd October, 1991, delivered by Sri. Mohamad Anwar, Member he Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chikmangalur, in M.V.C. Nos. 198, 199, 215, 218, 220, 221, 225, 229, 228, 239, 240, 245, 246, 247, 250, 287, 283, 289, 304, , 311 and 435 of 1989, arising out of one and the same accident. The scope of these (sic) is confined to the quantum of compensation. No cross-objection or cross- (sic) has been filed by the respondents:2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 27th of May, 1989, the claimants (sic) claim petitions, except the two M.V.C. Nos. 214 and 311 of 1989, are the sons who had been injured, while in M.V.C. Nos. 214 and 314, claim petitions (sic) been preferred by L.Rs. of the two persons, who had died as a result of injuries (sic) sed to them, on account of motor vehicle accident.3. Appeal Nos. M.F.A. 680 of 1992 and 671 of 1992, are the appeals filed by heirs of the deceased persons, who...
Swamy Distributors Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Kar)290
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is a partnership firm carrying on business, according to it, in consumer goods.2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the intimation dt. 30th Sept., 1992, issued by the first respondent under Section 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B. The petitioner has also prayed for striking down the provisions of Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) of the Act and also amendment introduced by Finance Act, 1993, and for other reliefs.3. Sri Sarangan, learned senior counsel appearing along with Sri Ramabhadran for the petitioner, submitted that the provisions of Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) of the Act are liable to be declared as unconstitutional in view of the fact that as the provisions of Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) do not provide for an opportunity being given to an assessee before issuing an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) an...
Swamy Distributors Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1997
Reported in: [2004]139TAXMAN310(Kar)
ORDERThe petitioner in this petition is a partnership firm carrying on business, according to it, in consumer goods.2. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the intimation dated 30-9-1992, issued by the first respondent under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B. The petitioner has also prayed for. striking down the provisions of sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) of the Act and also amendment introduced by Finance Act, 1993, and for other reliefs.3. Sri Sarangan, learned senior counsel appearing along with Sri Ramabhadran for the petitioner, submitted that the provisions of sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1 A) of the Act are liable to be declared as unconstitutional in view of the fact that as the provisions of sections 143(1)(a) and 143(1A) do not provide for an opportunity being given to an assessee before issuing an intimation under section 143(1)(a) and an order under section...
R. Pandiyam Vs. B.M. Nagappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Kant381; 1997(3)KarLJ190
ORDER1. H.R.R.P. No. 1358/1994 was filed by the tenant challenging the order passed in H.R.C. No. 2948/1989 on the file of the I Additional Small Causes Court (H.R.C. Court) allowing the landlord's (respondent in the revision petition) petition for eviction on the ground under Section 21(1)(p) (tenant had acquired alternative suitable premises) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act.2. On 30-11-1995 this Court has dismissedthe revision petition for non-prosecution on the ground that the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner was absent (the learned Counsel for the respondent was present).3. This order has been passed by this Court taking into consideration that on earlier three occasions when the case was called out the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner was absent.4. I- A. No. IV has been filed on 8-2-1996 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying that the delay in filing T.A. No. V (to recall the order dated 30-11-1995) be condoned.5. I. A. No. IV is accompanied by the a...
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: II(1997)DMC503; ILR1997KAR1729; 1997(3)KarLJ227
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Petitioner has sought for quashing proceeding in C.C. No. 2937/96 on the file of the learned Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore. He has also sought for quashing of the order dated 16-12-1996 passed by the learned magistrate taking cognisance of the offences under Sections 498A, 302, 30-B, 506, 201 and 202, I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. A notice of this petition was given to the persecution and the respondent State has filed a detailed objections. 3. The brief facts that are necessary to dispose of this criminal petition are that on 9-1-1992 at about 5.30 a.m. Smt. Sujatha w/o Reveendra the third son of the petitioner suffered burn injuries in the house of the petitioner where she lived along with the petitioner, her husband, her mother-in-law and other family members. At about 6.30 a.m. she was shifted to Agadi Nursing Home, Bangalore and at the Nursing Home, she made a statement to th...
Balaji Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Kar)61; [1997]225ITR471(KAR); [1997]225ITR471(Karn)
P. Krishna Moorthy, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following two questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that letting out of the shops by the assessee concern amounts to business activities (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the revised returns filed by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to be assessed in the status of an association of persons under section 26 of the Income-tax Act in respect of the rental income ?' 2. The assessee is a firm evidenced by a partnership deed. According to the assessee, four different groups had joined together and taken a property on lease and built up a structure on the same and was leasing out to various persons. 3. Originally, the assessee had claimed before the Income-tax Officer the status of a registered firm an...
M. Gopal Vs. the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Registrar/Licensing ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: ILR1998KAR251; 2000(3)KarLJ214
ORDER1. A common question has been raised in a batch of writ petitions. The above case has been treated as the lead case and all the Counsels interested in the question raised in the group have been heard. Besides, thisCourt requested Mr. M.C. Narasimhan and Mr. K. Kasturi to appear and assist the Court. They have commendably discharged their duties.2. Sri S.N. Murthy led the arguments on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Vijayashankar, learned Advocate General, assisted by Smt. S. Sujatha, learned Government Pleader, defended the State.3. The area of controversy is regarding the implementation and working of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). All the questions that might plausibly arise have been considered by the Supreme Court in the celebrated judgment in Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v Hind Mazdoor Sabha and Others . Yet, in view of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, it has become n...
The Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. D. Lingappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ367
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Diploma holders, Junior Engineers of the appellant-Corporation filed various writ petitions in this Court praying for the issuance of directions to the appellant to prepare the seniority list of Junior Engineers of the Corporation of City of Bangalore in accordance with law assigning them proper rankings. They also prayed for review of the promotions ordered to the cadre of Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers after the coming into force of the Bangalore Municipal Corporation Services (General) Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter called the 'Regulations, 1971'). It was prayed that action of the appellant in considering the case of the degree holders, Junior Engineers for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer to be quashed. Vide his judgment impugned in these appeals, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ petitioners and the respondents therein had been promoted to the same cadre and that the appellant-Corp...
Assistant Commissioner, and Vs. M. Rudramuni Swamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1291; 1997(3)KarLJ48
ORDER XLI RULES 11 & 19. In an Appeal filed by the State challenging the Award passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition matter, beneficiary A.P.M.C. had filed an application for impleading as party respondent in the Appeal on the ground that it was not made party in the Reference Court. When the Appeal come up for admission counsel for the impleading Applicant remained absent and Court after hearing the High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant, State dismissed the Appeal at the stage of Admission itself. The Respondent Beneficiary APMC filed an Application to recall the order dismissing the Appeal and for Re-Hearing the Appeal on the ground that it has not been heard before dismissing the Appeal at the stage of Admission.Held:Order 41 Rule 11 only mandates for hearing the appellant or his pleader at that stage. The Appellate Court is entitled to dismiss the Appeal in limine without issuing notice to the respondent, if it is not satisfied that, there are suffic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »