Karnataka Court July 1999 Judgments
State by C.O.D. Police, Anti Dowry Cell, Bangalore Vs. K. Sridhar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ328; I(2000)DMC320; 2000(1)KarLJ274
ORDERM.F. Saldanha1. We have heard this appeal at considerable length principally because the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted before us that the Trial Court has totally and completely bypassed all those parts of the evidence which clearly indicates that there was a demand for money which was effectively the unpaid dowry amount and that this was the reason for the unhappiness that emanated in the mind of the deceased wife. He has relied principally on the evidence of P.W. 3 in order to demonstrate to us that the reason for the unfortunate suicide was the continuous demand coupled with harassment that is traceable to the accused and that the learned Trial Judge has not accorded due weight to this very important evidence. The learned State Public Prosecutor relies on the position in law because he submits that once the prosecution established that the aspect of dowry was very much in the forefront at the time of the marriage, that despite having demanded and received certain amo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. God Granites
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1999
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Kar)327
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.This judgment shall dispose of WA 3783/1995 arising from the order passed in WP No. 15449/1995 relating to the assessment year 1992-93, 1TRC No. 440/1998 also related to the assessment year 1992-93, WP No. 18303/1996 relating to the assessment year 1991-92 and WP No. 12270/1996 relating to the assessment year 1993-94, as the central dispute between the parties in these cases is same/similar. Difference of facts leading to multiple and divergent proceedings is being indicated. Due to multiple and divergent proceedings different reliefs have to be given which are also being indicated. Facts in different cases are referred to in the order in which they were argued before us by the counsel for the parties.2. At the first instance arguments were addressed in the reference petition ITRC No. 440/1998 relating to the assessment year 1992-93 and facts are narrated from that. Since the writ appeal also relates to the same assessment year facts leading to the filing of the writ...
Tag this Judgment!Linganagouda Gurulingappagouda Patil (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)KarLJ176
ORDER1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of one Linganagouda Gurulingappagouda Patil and they challenged the order Annexure-D, dated 20-11-1996 whereunder the Land Tribunal held that the deceased petitioner held 20 acres of land in excess of the ceiling limit and as per Annexure-E demanded that the extent of land be surrendered in accordance with law.2. Deceased Linganagouda Gurulingappagouda Patil filed Form No. 11 on 30-12-1974. The Land Tribunal after an enquiry held by its order dated 16-8-1979 that the deceased Linganagouda Gurulingappagouda Patil did not possess land in excess of the ceiling limit. The matter rested there till Annexure-C, dated 5-4-1996 was issued to Linganagouda Gurulingappagouda Patil, calling upon him to appear before the Land Tribunal on 18-9-1996 for an enquiry regarding the declaration filed by him in Form No. 11. Since Gurulingappagouda Patil did not enter appearance before the Land Tribunal, the order Annexure-D came to be made by the Land Tr...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Gampa, Gulbarga and Another Vs. Shivasharanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3430
ORDER1. A suit instituted by a person described as one who is mentally incapable to look after his interest, through his next friend, is still at the threshold of commencement of the proceedings. The plaintiff brought the suit through his next friend describing himself to be mentally infirm and unsound. It is seen, that initially no application was made by the next friend to be permitted to represent the plaintiff as such and no enquiry was conducted by the Court in this behalf earlier. The defendant appeared and contested the capacity of the next friend to bring the suit asaccording to him, the plaintiff is neither infirm nor lunatic nor of unsound mind. On his context Issue No. 1 was framed as under: 'Whether the plaintiff is mentally infirm and of unsoundmind'.2. Thereafter the plaintiff filed LA. X to treat the above said issue as a preliminary issue. 3. In that proceedings the plaintiff got a commissioner appointed - a qualified Doctor attached to NIMHANS Hospital - to examine the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Narashima Prasad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: [2001]250ITR852(KAR); [2001]250ITR852(Karn)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, has filed this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a mandamus directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'), to refer the following two questions of law along with the statement of case to this court for its opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in cancelling the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) levied ?(2) Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had not concealed the particulars of its income ?'2. These petitions relate to the assessment years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, respectively. They were all disposed of by a common order of the Tribunal. Reference petitions were also disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order. We also propose to dispose of the...
Tag this Judgment!Fosroc Chemicals India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Kar)51; [2001]248ITR603(KAR); [2001]248ITR603(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The petitioner submitted an application under the Kar Vivad Samadan Scheme for the assessment year 1995-96. The said declaration was considered invalid by communication dated February 23, 1999, which has been challenged in these petitions. 2. The facts of the case are that in respect of the assessment year 1995-96 an intimation under Section 143(1)(a) for Rs. 18,59,056 was received which was reduced to Rs. 14,75,003 and the matter is stated to be pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. For the assessment year 1996-97, by virtue of a rectification order passed under Section 154 on August 31, 1998, a sum of Rs. 22,87,134 was refundable. 4. For the assessment year 1997-98 a refund of Rs. 10,78,700 was found payable in accordance with the intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, adjustment of refund for the year 1997-98 and part of the amount refundable of 1996-97 have wrongly been adjusted in the deman...
Tag this Judgment!Sonarome Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Kar)180; ILR1999KAR4241; [2000]242ITR39(KAR); [2000]242ITR39(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The validity of the provision of Sections 276C(1) and 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been challenged in these writ petitions as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The order dated March 22, 1996, passed under Section 279(1) of the Act for the assessment years 1988-89 to 1991-92 has been challenged as without jurisdiction. The complaint filed before the Special Court for Economic Offences at Bangalore, is also prayed to be quashed. 2. A survey was conducted on December 7, 1995, under Section 133A of the Act. Notice under Section 148 was issued on December 15, 1995. Notices dated February 14, 1996, and March 1, 1996, were issued as to why the prosecution proceedings should not be launched against the petitioners for not filing the returns in time. The Commissioner of Income-tax not satisfied with the reply, authorised the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax to file a complaint under Sections 276C(1) and 276CC of the Act. Interest und...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Subramanyam and Company and Another Vs. Muniswamappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4707; 2000(5)KarLJ97
ORDERB.N. Mallikarjuna, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 4950 of 1987 on the file of the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore has filed this revision under Section 115 of the CPC challenging the legality and correctness of the common order dated 21-1-1999 on I.As. 7 and 11. Respondents herein are the defendants. I.A. 7 is an application under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC filed in Court on 11-3-1994 signed by the plaintiff and the defendants other than defendants 1 and 2 reporting compromise in the matter. I.A. 11 is the application filed by the defendants on 14-8-1995 under Order 23, Rule 3 (Proviso) read with Section 151 of the CPC requesting the Court not to record the compromise and to proceed with the trial of the suit. Learned Trial Judge, after hearing both the parties, by the order impugned, has rejected I.A. 7 and allowed I.A. 11. This order is under challenge in this revision.2. Heard Sri Raghavan, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Sri Srinivasan, learned Counsel for respond...
Tag this Judgment!Hatti Gold Mines Company Limited Vs. Khaleel Ahmed Dakhani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4525; 2000(5)KarLJ557
ORDERB.N. Mallikarjuna, J. 1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC by the judgment-debtor in Exc. P. 50 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur is directed against the order dated 24-5-1999. Subsequently, by way of amendment petitioner has also sought for quashing the order dated 21-6-1999 on I.A. I an application under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC. Respondent is the decree-holder. 2. Briefly stated the facts are: Decree-holder is a contractor and resident of Shorapur in the District of Gulbarga. Judgment-debtor is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its principal office at Bangalore and the mining activities at a place called Hatti in Lingsugur Taluk, Raichur District. Company having decided to go in for a High School building for the convenience of the children of its employees, called for tenders and the tender offered by the decree-holder was accepted andthe construction work was entrusted to him subj...
Tag this Judgment!Engee Industrial Services (Private) Limited, Bombay and Another Vs. Un ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1999
Reported in: 2000(67)ECC504; 1999LC842(Karnataka); 2000(115)ELT58(Kar); ILR1999KAR3751; 1999(6)KarLJ607
ORDER1. The liability of additional duty of customs have been challenged in these writ petitions. The petitioner is carrying on the business of ship breaking and importing vessels for ship breaking. Attention is drawn to the Budget Speech of Finance Minister, for the year 1993-94 delivered on 27-2-1993 which is to be the following effect:'91. The Ship Breaking Industry is employment intensive and an important source of raw materials for the secondary sector of our steel industry. In order to encourage the growth of this industry, I propose to prescribe a lower merged duty of customs at 5% ad valorem. The ferrous materials obtained from breaking up of such ships etc., which are presently subject to excise duty are being fully exempted'.2. On 3-8-1993 the petitioner presented a bill of entry claiming classification of vessel under Chapter 89.08.00 of the Customs Tariff Act, read with Notification No. 74/93, dated 28-2-1993 to the Customs Appraiser. 5% ad valorem was paid. The dispute was...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »