Karnataka Court January 1998 Judgments
State by Central Bureau of Investigation/Special Police Establishment, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)181; 1998CriLJ2484; ILR1999KAR823; 1998(3)KarLJ478
ORDER1. The brief facts leading to these two I.As. are that in Cr. P. No. 2344 of 1996 the petitioner filed a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 27-7-1996 passed by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C. No. 22756 of 1996 taking cognizance of the case and directing issue of process to the petitioners. The said case was posted for hearing. On that day the learned advocate was absent and therefore, this Court passed an order on merits on the main contention holding that the contention raised in the petition is that the list of witnesses was not furnished to the petitioner therein, that may be an error which would not go to the root of the case. Therefore, the complainant was directed to furnish the list of witnesses and also list of documents, if any, to the petitioner on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court and the petition was dismissed.2. Similarly Cr. P. No. 555 of 1996 was filed by Rajashekar Scindia under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Shivanathan (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. S.G. Narayana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ514
ORDER1. Counter of respondent 1 to I.A. No. III is filed.2. Mr. M. Papanna fairly submits that he may be permitted to withdraw I.A. No. III.3. Hence, I.A. No. III is dismissed as withdrawn.4. This revision by the petitioners-landlords is directed against the order dated 25-2-1992 of the II Additional District Judge, Mysore, passed in RRP No. 21 of 1985 dismissing the landlord's revision and confirming the Trial Court's order dated 15-12-1984 that was passed rejecting landlord's petition under Section 21(1)(f) and (h) of the KRC Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).5. Heard the arguments of Mr. M. Papanna, learned Counsel for petitioner.6. Heard the arguments of Mr. Shankarappa, learned Counsel representing for respondent 1.However, he further sought adjournment of the case submitting that Mr. M.T. Nanaiah, learned Counsel for respondent 1 was out of station, his request for adjournment was declined since this matter was a part-heard matter and was repeatedly posted for further hearing.7. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Energomach Exports
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2029; [1998]232ITR448(KAR); [1998]232ITR448(Karn)
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. The following two questions are referred under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for our opinion ;'1. Whether, on the facts of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,04,095 received by the assessee, a foreign company, from Karnataka Power Corporation is in the nature of fees for technical services, within the meaning of Explanation 2 below Section 9(l)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that income by way of fees for technical services, whetherarising out of business connection or not was required to be dealt with only under Clause (vii) and not under Clause (i) of the Section 9(1) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The facts of the case are : The assessee is a foreign company and assessment is made through its agent, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., for the assessment year 1980-81. The agent of the assessee company, i.e., Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (Indian co...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant195; [1998]94CompCas409(Kar)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this application, the applicant-Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), has made two prayers. Firstly, the applicant has prayed for modification of the order dated October 31, 1996, made in Company Petition No. 17 of 1989, to the extent this court directed the official liquidator to forthwith take charge of all the properties and effects of the first respondent, Intermodel Transport Technology Systems (Karnataka) Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), and to exempt from the direction given in the said order in so far as it relates to the assets taken over by the Corporation pursuant to the mahazar dated December 11, 1989, prepared by the Corporation and their sale in favour of the second respondent ; and, secondly, to permit the Corporation to hand over the assets of the company to the second respondent pursuant to the sale of the assets of the company made in f...
Tag this Judgment!Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. K.S. Nirvanappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1979; (1999)ILLJ741Kant
H. Rangavittalachar, J.1. Since the same 'questions of law' is involved in all these petitions, all of them were heard together and disposed of by the common order.2. The petitioner in all these cases are Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees of different areas in the State of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as 'A.P.M.C.' for brevity) has questioned the awards passed by jurisdictional Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal as the latter lacking jurisdiction to pass the impugned awards.Writ Petition No. 5046/1989 3. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee (for short 'the APMC') Kadur by its Secretary has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certioraris to quash the order/award of the Labour Court, Mangalore in reference No. ID (LCM) No. 89/78 dated 5.1.1987.4. The first respondent to this petition was appointed on 18.3,1964 which was approved on 23.6.1969 by the petitioner. That on the ground that the first respondent w...
Tag this Judgment!Bhalchandra Transport Company, Hubli and Others Vs. State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant213; ILR1998KAR1794; 1998(3)KarLJ278
ORDER1. The petitioners are the fleet owners, transport contractors and commission agents and they are carrying on the inter-State transport business in India. They have invested a huge sum of money and hard labour in establishing their transport business. They possess all requisite permits. So far they have not violated any rules under the Motor Vehicles Act.2. Mr. Jadhav, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in spite of amendment to Section 114 of the Motor Vehicles Act, still the police are harassing and booking cases against the drivers on the ground that the transport vehicles are over-loaded. According to him, in view of the spirit of the amendment carried out to Section 114 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is only the authorities concerning the Motor Vehicles Department are authorised to book the cases in case of violation of Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submits that in spite of amendment, the prosecutions have been launched by the police. As an e...
Tag this Judgment!Middi Kondappa Vs. Bodi Ramappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1403; 1998(3)KarLJ470
1. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the respondent-defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 5-12-1990 passed by the Civil Judge, Chickaballapur, in R.A. No. 26 of 1990, dismissing the appeal and modifying the judgment and decree dated 26-6-1990 passed by the Munsiff, Bagepalli, in Original Suit No. 13 of 1987.2. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit against the respondent-defend ant praying for declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the entire suit property measuring about 8 acres (there is a little discrepancy regarding the extent of the suit property, but there is no dispute regarding the identity of the suit schedule property). The plaintiff further prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession of the suit property. The learned Munsiff partly decreed the suit regarding declaration (about half the suit property measuring 4 acres 6 guntas). The learned Munsif...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Vs. State by Nyamthi Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)84; 1998(3)KarLJ455
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. This is a back stabbing case -- in the literal sense of the term because the appellant before us is alleged to have inflicted four stab injuries on the back of the deceased with a knife at about 1.30 p.m. on 17-12-1993. The prosecution alleges that the deceased is supposed to have informed the wife of the accused some time earlier that the deceased and his wife had seen the accused and his unmarried sister-in-law standing near Shantala Talkies at Honnali. There is no serious motive that is attributed or for that matter established and it is alleged that on the date in question, the village market was taking place and that P.W. 8-Basappa who is a coconut vendor was doing his business near one of the shops. The accused purchased a coconut from Basappa and consumed it at which time the deceased arrived there and similarly bought a coconut and drank it. When the deceased was leaving, the accused is alleged to have stabbed him four times on the back as a result of which...
Tag this Judgment!Kalasa Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1370; [1999]235ITR112(KAR); [1999]235ITR112(Karn)
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. The petitioner is an owner of tea and coffee plantations and an assessee under the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). For the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1970-71, the petitioner filed its returns under the Act. After due enquiries, the assessments came to be completed. The orders are passed on November 5, 1973. The petitioner claimed before the assessing authority that he is entitled for special allowance to be granted to the industrial undertaking as per Section 80-I of the Central Income-tax Act. That was negatived by the assessing authority. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax (Appeals), Mysore. The appellate authority, vide its order dated November 28, 1977, granted certain reliefs. The Deputy Commissioner of the Agricultural Income-tax (Appeals) has also held that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer has to allow the deduction at 8 per cent...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ranganatha Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: [1998]232ITR568(KAR); [1998]232ITR568(Karn)
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for consideration at the instance of the assessee. Three questions are referred for consideration which are as follows ;'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's income as a result of toddy tapping was not agricultural income exempt under Section 10(1) of the Income-tax Act ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the activity of tapping toddy did not involve manufacture or production of an article or thing ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80HHA in respect of its toddy business ?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee is the licensee for tapping and vending of toddy. He filed his returns for the assessment year 1983-84 d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »