Karnataka Court December 1999 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.
Umesh Bhimarao Marapur Vs. Devappa Dhulappa Navi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR384; 2000(1)KarLJ139
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed against the orders passed in Execution Appeal No. 17 of 1976, dated 2-2-1977 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Bijapur, dismissing the said appeal and upholding the objection raised by the judgment-debtor (J.Dr.) since there is no assignment of decree in favour of the appellant-transferee of the decree schedule property, he is not entitled to execute the decree.2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides.3. One Channabasappa Kurle who was the owner of the decree schedule building obtained an eviction order against the respondent-J.Dr. in HRC No. 2 of 1973 on the ground under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. After obtaining the said eviction order, he sold a portion of the suit property which is the tenanted property in favour of the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 16-7-1974. Thereafter, the appellant filed the Execution Case No. 4 of 1975 in the Executing Court that is, Principal Munsiff Cour...
Bhavera Kenchappa Vs. B. Raghavendrachar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ407
ORDER1. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India toquash the order dated 17-5-1996 passed by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Taluk Honnali.2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the land in question were regranted in favour of B. Raghavendrachar, s/o Narasimhachar and others by the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Taluk, vide an order dated 10-3-1969. The lands which are granted in favour of (a) B. Narasimhachar were Sy. No. 60, extent 11 guntas; Sy. No. 52, extent 3 acres 24 guntas and Sy. No. 140, extent 3 acres 10 guntas as well as Sy. No. 126, extent 2 acres 20 guntas; (b) Hanumantha Rao, was granted the land in Sy. No. 52 extent 3 acres 23 guntas; Sy. No. 126, extent 2 acres 30 guntas and Sy. No. 140, extent 3 acres 15 guntas; and finally (c) B. Gururayachar the lands in Sy. No. 69 extent 31 guntas; Sy. No. 126 extent 2 acres 30 guntas and Sy. No. 140, extent 3 acres 39 guntas and ...
A. Girija and Others Vs. University of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant283; ILR2000KAR3558; 2000(5)KarLJ209
ORDER1. A common question arises -for consideration in these writ petitions which shall stand disposed of by this common order. The answer to the question turns on a true and correct interpretation of the regulations framed by the respondent-University governing declaration of ranks in the examinations offered by it. The controversy arises in the following circumstances.2. The petitioners have passed their B.E. final examinations in different disciplines in the year 1998. Their grievance is that looking to the marks secured by them in VII and VIII Semester examinations conducted by the University, they were entitled to ranks in terms of the regulations framed by the University. Instead of doing so the University has chosen candidates who had secured lesser marks and thus deprived the petitioners of the distinctions which was rightfully theirs. They have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to allot to them proper ranks in accordance with the regulations and to rectify the li...
State of Karnataka Vs. Basappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2327; ILR2000KAR2361; 2000(6)KarLJ187
1. Through this appeal, the State of Karnataka has assailed the adequacy of sentence awarded to the respondent-accused who faced his trial in CC No. 57 of 1989 in the Court of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagalkot for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 477A of the IPC.2. Briefly stated, the accused who was the Branch Post Master of Nainegali Branch Post Office between the period 27-6-1979 to 20-11-1984 was inter alia in charge of the SB Accounts maintained by the Branch. The allegation against him was that on the scrutiny of the records, it was disclosed that an amount of Rs. 3,400/- had not been accounted for in the records of the Post Office. There is an elaborate procedure prescribed for the maintenance of the different records and the charge was that the entries were incorrect and that consequently, the offence under Section 477A of the IPC is also disclosed. Another relevant fact is that the accused more than fully reimbursed the entire amount ...
Prasanna Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR188(KAR); [2000]244ITR188(Karn)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law arising out of its order dated August 16, 1994, pertaining to the assessment year 1990-91 :'1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Explanation under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act could be invoked at any stage even if no show cause notice had been issued under the said Explanation and the assessee had no opportunity of meeting the Department's case under the said Explanation ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of penalty on the ground that the assessee's explanation as to the expenditure on repairs and maintenance claimed by it was not bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of its income had not been disclosed by it, without appreciation of the material evidence produced by the assessee ?' 2. The assessee is a firm...
State of Karnataka and Another Vs. B.S. Manibanakar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)KarLJ201
ORDER1. The State Government has come in appeal against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 11971 to 11973 of 1996, dated 20-10-1998.2. The brief facts of the case are as under;Respondents 1 to 3 were the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 11971 to 11973 of 1996. Respondent 1, the petitioner 1 was appointed as a part-time lecturer and he was later on appointed as a full time lecturer in the year 1982. His appointment was approved by the Directorate of Vocational Guidance and he was paid a consolidated pay. His services were regularised on 1-7-1995. Respondent 2/petitioner 2 was initially appointed as a part-time lecturer in Kannada and he was later appointed as full time lecturer in the year 1984 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 740/- per month. His services were also regularised from 1-7-1994. Respondent 3/petitioner 3 was appointed as lecturer in Sericulture in the year 1984 as a full time lecturer and he was also paid a consolidated salary and later his services we...
A.J. Shetty Vs. M/S. Bharat Plywood and Timber Products Limited, Canna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR494; 2000(2)KarLJ194
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18-6-1999 passed in LA. 7 in O.S. No. 80 of 1997 rejecting the request for refund of half Court fee paid on the plaint.2. Facts.--Plaintiff petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 80 of 1997 for specific performance of a contract of agreement of sale dated 19-8-1993 and to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and has paid a Court fee in terms of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The first defendant is a company and the second defendant is the Managing Director. Defendants 3 to 8 are the Directors of first defendant-company. Defendants 1 and 2 are the real contesting defendants. Defendants (respondents 3 and 5 to 8) remained ex parte before the Trial Court.3. During the pendency of the suit and before evidence is recorded, a memo came to be filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the following terms:--'The above suit is settled out of Court betwee...
Dr. Roopa R. Nadig Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)KarLJ341
ORDER1. These petitions are filed by Dental Surgeons with regard to promotion to the Cadre of Assistant Professor in Operative Dentistry by the respondents. 2. Writ Petition No. 21246 of 1998 is filed by Dr. Bharathi D. Deo challenging the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 2-4-1998 in Application No. 1500 of 1996. The averments in the said petition are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Dental Surgeon by a notification dated 8-6-1984. Respondent 3-Dr. Roopa R. Nadig was also appointed on the same date. The seniority between the petitioner and respondent 3 are as per Annexure-A. Petitioner reported for duty on 21-6-1984 and filed an application for selection to the postgraduate course against the seats reserved for in-service candidate. She was initially not selected, forcing her to file an Application No. 2543 of1988. The same was allowed. Later, she was selected for the academic year 1989 and she completed her degree in Operative Dentistry in July 199...
Dyamanna (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others Vs. Gaddappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)KarLJ444
ORDER1.This revision petition is filed by the petitioners-defendants aggrieved by the orders of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yadgir in M.A. No. 6 of 1998, dated 22-8-1999 wherein the Appellate Judge has set aside the orders of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shorapur in O.S. No. 13 of 1991, dated 13-3-1998. The parties, for the sake of brevity, are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.2. The facts in brief are as under.-The respondent-Gaddappa (plaintiff) filed suit in O.S. No. 13 of 1991 on the file of the Munsiff, Shorapur seeking for an order of injunction against the defendant restraining them from causing interference and obstruction to the plaintiff for performing the pooja and conducting the annual jathra, management of Geddamma Temple situated at Janginagaddi Village, Shorapur Taluk. Along with the plaint, he filed an interim application seeking for a temporary injunction. The case as pleaded isthat the defendant 2 (petitioner 2) is the adoptive mother of ...
V.M. Salgaocar and Brothers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1999
Reported in: [2001]250ITR682(KAR); [2001]250ITR682(Karn); [2001]119TAXMAN576(Kar)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1977-78 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that failure of the assessee at least to indicate the presence of the closing stock relating to the chips could give rise to a reasonable belief as envisaged under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, and in that view in concluding that the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 147(a) of the Act, in a valid manner ?'2. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income on June 30, 1977, declaring the total income at Rs. 1,52,12,656. This was revised on January 18, 1978, and a total loss of Rs. 2,85,77,361 was declared in the revised return. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on September 6, 1980, by determining the total...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »