Karnataka Court July 1998 Judgments
Satishchandra and Co. V Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Kar)375
Ashok Bhan , J.For the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal,' has referred the following question of law to this court with appropriate statement of case. As the issue involved in the appeals before the Tribunal was the same, the appeals were, for the sake of convenience, consolidated and heard together. One common order was passed in all the appeals. The reference applications were also disposed of by a common order and therefore, this order shall dispose of the reference petitions for all the three years by a common order :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order dated 3-12-1985, under section 154 for the assessment year in question ?'2. The assessee is an arrack contractor. It has been assessed in the status of unregistered firm. In the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 completed by the Income Tax Officer, on 15-2...
Tag this Judgment!Satishchandra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]234ITR76(KAR); [1999]234ITR76(Karn)
Ashok Bhan , J.For the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal,' has referred the following question of law to this court with appropriate statement of case. As the issue involved in the appeals before the Tribunal was the same, the appeals were, for the sake of convenience, consolidated and heard together. One common order was passed in all the appeals. The reference applications were also disposed of by a common order and therefore, this order shall dispose of the reference petitions for all the three years by a common order :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order dated 3-12-1985, under section 154 for the assessment year in question ?'2. The assessee is an arrack contractor. It has been assessed in the status of unregistered firm. In the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 completed by the Income Tax Officer, on 15-2...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Veerarajammanni and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ438
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. K. Srid-har, assisted by Mr. N.S. Hiremath, Advocate and Mr. M.H. Ibrahim, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners who claimed to be the joint owners of property bearing No. 24 situated at Lalitha Mahal Road, Mysore City and popularly known as 'Kismat Cottage'. The properties bearing Nos. 14, 14/1 to 12 situated at Chandragupta Road, Mysore City, have been claimed by the petitioners as the joint owners thereof and the same belonged originally to the husband of the first petitioner and father of the second petitioner.3. The petitioners' case is that acquisition proceedings in entirety, were against the provision of law as contained in Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act as well as were against the principle of natural justice. The petitioners on 24-9-1986 submitted representation under Section 20 of Urban Ceiling Act, 1976 seeking the exemption under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Shivarudrappa and Another Vs. Chinnayallappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ429
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the judgment and order dated 27-8-1993 passed by Sri A.M. Bennur, CivilJudge, Arsikere, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 1993 arising from the judgment and order dated 8-1-1993 passed by the Munsiff, Arsikere, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 25 of 1990 dismissing the appeal and affirming the order of the Trial Court, rejecting the applicants' application under Order 43, Rule 1(na) of the CPC.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioners- applicants filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 38,113/- with application for being allowed to sue in the form of pauperis as 'they have no money to pay the necessary Court-fee' and sought permission to institute the suit as indigent persons. The plaintiffs-revision petitioners stated that they had no movable or immovable properties of their own from which they could pay the Court-fee amount nor they are in a position to get any loan from the persons of the local...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Pullamma Vs. Smt. Padmavathi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ571
ORDER1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the purchaser of the land in question granted by the Government under dharkasth on 13-9-1962 to one Baiyanna who was admittedly a member of Woddara community. That land was purchased by the petitioner from the grantee on 26-10-1970. Subsequently, the grantee died. 3. After the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short) came into force with effect from 1-1-1979, the grantee's daughter-in-law, who is respondent 1, made an application to respondent 3 seeking resumption of the land under Section 5 of the Act on the ground that the same had been alienated to the petitioner-purchaser in breach of the non-alienation condition which was attached to the grant prohibiting its transfer for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. 4. On enquiry, respondent 3 passes the order at Annexure-A dated 22-8-1997 holding the said sale null and void and directing petitioner's eviction from...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajavalse Vs. State by Circle Inspector of Police, Madiwala Traffic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC218; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)328; 1999CriLJ58; 1998(6)KarLJ730
ORDER1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Cri. R.P. No. 37 of 1998 confirming the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court I, Bangalore in C.C. No. 24934 of 1997 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 251, Cr. P,C. to stop further proceedings by discharging the accused, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as a whole no case is made out as against this petitioner; that the doctor's certificate only shows that he had consumed alcohol but not intoxicated and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.3. However, the learned State Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the case is set down for recording the evidence and the quantity of alcohol consumed by the petitioner will have to be spoken to by the doctor who examined him as ...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Kulkarni and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ485
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24-9-1993 passed by the Government in No. Vanae/110/Cup/86/Bangalore (Annexure-P).2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner had moved an application for grant of exemption under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'), with reference to the land bearing No. 109/2+3+4/1 measuring 13 acres, situatedat Sattur Taluk, Dharwad District. With reference to the said land on 19-8-1963 the competent authority granted permission to put the above land for non-agricultural use by an Order No. LNA.SR.1537, dated 10-8-1963. Further the second respondent acceding to the request of the petitioner to exempt the said land from the operation and purview of Chapter III of the Act, has granted the said exemption, subject to certain conditions as contained in order dated 12-4-1983 at Annexure-D. The condition No. (III) was t...
Tag this Judgment!Gsa and Company, Bangalore and Others Vs. Escorts Limited, New Delhi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ674
ORDER1. In the suit filed under Order 37, Rule 1 of the CPC, the defendants have moved an application under Order 37, Rule 2, seeking leave to defend the suit. The Court below has granted that leave, but subject to condition. The first condition is that as far as the admitted amount is concerned, it granted time till 30-8-1994 to defendants to deposit that amount i.e., Rs. 13,69,356/- in Court. As far as the remaining amount of Rs. 8,33,710/- is concerned the Court below granted leave to contest and directed the defendant to give security for that amount on or before 30-8-1994. Feeling aggrieved from this order the defendants have come up with this revision petition.2. On behalf of the defendant-revision petitioner, it has been contended that in view of the terms of the agreement between the parties the Delhi Courts only have jurisdiction and not the Court below or this Court. Further, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Court below had no jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Verma Vs. State by Cbi, Spe, Acb, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)281; [1999]95CompCas26(Kar); 1999CriLJ1327; 1998(5)KarLJ671
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the order passed by the 21st Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI case, Bangalore, holding that the charge-sheet filed by the CBI without sanction to prosecute the accused is proper and legal and that there are sufficient materials to frame charge against the accused persons. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is a former bank Manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur which is a Nationalised Bank and it is a Government undertaking and no prosecution would lie against him as contemplated under Section 197(1), Cr. P.C. This contention was raised by the learned Counsel before the Court below and the Court below has considered it in detail and has held that no sanction is necessary. It is also held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a decision in Mohd. Hadi Raja v State of Bihar and Another : 'On the plain language of Section 197 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Ghasi Ram and ors. Vs. Chait Ram Saini and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3221
V.N. Khare, J.1. This Civil appeal raised only one question that is, as to whether the benefits of provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be extended to a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 21, of Rule 103, CPC and is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the Second Appeal filed by the defendant, respondent was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.2. Since the High Court had dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, the facts of the case which are somewhat complicated, need not be set out in detail, but reference may be made only to such facts which have direct bearing upon the question involved in this case.3. The defendant-respondent had filed Suit No. 279 of 1950 against one Chhutan for recovery of rent and ejectment from the premises which was decreed and the execution proceeding No. 331 of 1951 ensured. Since the A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »