Karnataka Court January 2000 Judgments
Cit Vs. A. Janardhana Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2000
Reported in: (2002)173CTR(Kar)252
Order V.K. Singhal, J. The Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated 25-11-1994, for the assessment year 1984-85.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that raid expenses is allowable under section 37(1)?'2. Facts as stated by the Tribunal are that the assessee had done arrack business in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. The assessee had incurred certain expenditures in helping the excise authorities in organising the raids to reduce illicit trade, and claimed the expenditure towards raids in connection with the business for allowing deduction under section 37. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that it is the duty of the State excise staff to unearth illicit brewing, for which they have got their own machinery. He furthermore stated that the assessee could not adduce any evidence as to how exactly the amount claimed had...
Tag this Judgment!Puttanna and Another Vs. Lakshmana and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ113; AIR2000Kant187; ILR2000KAR1098; 2000(1)KarLJ603
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The parents of one P. Nagarajaiah, who had died in a motor accident involving a lorry bearing No. CTK 9534 and a bicycle on 26-4-1991 on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry, have approached this Court for enhancement of compensation which has been quantified by the Tribunal at Rs. 75,000/-.2. The Tribunal has found that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident and his parents were aged about 50 and 45 years respectively. Since there was no conclusive proof about the income of the deceased and the family had 8 acres 35 guntas of agricultural land, his services in agricultural operations and income from milk vending was assessed at Rs. 900/- per month. After deducting 1/3 for personal expenses, Rs. 600/- was taken as contribution to the family. Keeping in view average age of the parents of the deceased and the law laid by the Supreme Court in the cases of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v Mrs. Sus...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ismail and Another Vs. Smt. Shamshia Begum and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant234; ILR2000KAR1338; 2000(3)KarLJ66
Acts/Rules/Orders:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 2(9) - Order 6, Rules 2 and 4 - Order 7, Rule 1 - Order 8, Rules 5, 5(2) and 10 - Order 12, Rule 6 - Order 20, Rule 4(2)Cases Referred:Mahantaswamigalu Guru Sangana Basavana Swamigalu Hiremath v. Chairman, Grama Panchayat of Managoli, Baswvan Bagewadi Taluk, Bijapur District and Another, ILR 1999 Kar. 1942;Balraj Taneja and Another v. Sunil Madan and Another, (1999) 8 SCC 396, 1998(8) Supreme 27JUDGEMENT 1. This matter being listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal as respondents 1 and 2 remained unrepresented after service of notice. Heard and disposed of by this judgment.2. 1st respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendants who entered appearance through their Advocate failed to file the written statement. The matter was thereafter set down for the evidence of the plaintiff. In the meantime, the judgment of this Court was reported in Mahantaswamig...
Tag this Judgment!Rafeek Husensab Korti Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ258
1. I have heard the appellant's learned Counsel as also the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri S.S. Koti, in these two appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 1106 of 1996 is directed against the conviction of the appellant who was original accused 2 and who has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years pursuant to his conviction under Section 304, Part II of the IPC.2. It was alleged that the accused persons had been spreading certain rumours with regard to the conduct and physical condition of some of the womenfolk belonging to the complainant's side, that this issue was placed before the panchayat on the evening on 30-1-1995 and that accused 1 did not turn up as required by the panchayat. The complainant's side went to the house of accused 1 in a group and they climbed on the top of the roof and adopted a very aggressive posture at which time it is alleged that accused 2 came out with a knife and stabbed the deceased Noorahammed on the chest. There are two other minor injuries ...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhar G. Jindgade Alias S.G. Jingade and Others Vs. Smt. Satyavathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2862; II(2000)DMC541; 2000(4)KarLJ156
ORDER1. In this revision under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. A-1, 3 and 4 in C.C. No. 102 of 1985 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shimoga and appellants in Cr. A. 49 of 1988 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Shimoga have called in question the legality and correctness of their conviction under Section 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC. Respondent in the revision is the complainant. Another lady Mukta Bai, who was A-2 was acquitted by the Trial Court. I shall hereinafter refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the complaint.Learned Trial Judge convicted A-1 under Section 494 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for two months, further convicted A-3 and 4 parents of A-1 under Section 494 and 109 of the IPC but released them under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act after taking bond from each one of them undertaking to keep good behaviour for a perio...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Peter Prank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC704; 2000CriLJ3516; ILR2000KAR2164; 2000(6)KarLJ20
1. The respondent to this appeal Peter Prank, driver of K.S.R.T.C. Bus No. 8559 which was operating between Mangalore and Davangere. On 23-1-1993 at about 5.30 p.m. while the bus was passing Pundanahalli Gate it was involved in a collision with a bus coming from the opposite direction after which the bus ultimately dashed against a tree and came to a standstill. Six of the passengers were injured and one of them by the name of Rudramma who was a relatively aged person died as a result of the accident. The police registered offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of the IPC and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the accused. He was tried by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarikere and the learned trial Magistrate recorded the finding that the evidence of the injured witnesses does not bring home the charges and therefore acquitted the accused. The State has assailed the correctness of the acquittal through the present appeal.2. At the hearing...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gullamma and Another Vs. Basheer Sab and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: II(2000)ACC498; 2001ACJ97; ILR2000KAR1156; 2000(2)KarLJ393
1. This M.F.A. is taken up for final disposal with the consent of parties.2. One Chikkamarappa, the deceased (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') died on 9-12-1996 at 11-45 a.m. The deceased was standing in front of the shop of one Chowdappa near Bestamaranahalli on Anekal-Rajamaranahalli Road, a matador van No. KA 02 4089 of the first respondent insured with the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased as a result of which the deceased died on the spot.The first appellant is the mother of the deceased. The second appellant is the brother of the deceased.3. The Tribunal held that there was a rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Matador and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle that it was insured with the second respondent. I have no hesitation in affirming the finding of the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent act of the driver.4. With r...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shivaram Karanth Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant193; ILR2000KAR1294; 2000(2)KarLJ452
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This writ petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation by a well-known Novelist Dr. Shivaram Karanth of Karnataka alleging certain illegal activities carried out by the 6th respondent-Executive Officer of Sri Kollur Mookambika Temple resulting in loss of priceless antique jewellery and articles of the said temple.2. The petitioner is no more now. But he has not filed this writ petition asserting his personal right or to safeguard his own interest. Since it is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the lis is between this Court and the respondents against whom relief is sought in public interest. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we entertain this writ petition despite the death of the petitioner.3. The petitioner has stated that on or about 17-5-1993 one of the Archaks of the temple informed him about the removal of valuable articles pertaining to the temple. Immediately the petitioner wrote letter to the then Chief Minist...
Tag this Judgment!Dhama Phulchand Vs. the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: [2000(85)FLR374]; ILR2000KAR1062; 2000(4)KarLJ531; (2000)IILLJ395Kant
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner who has been dismissed from service on being found guilty of the various charges levelled against him has filed this petition challenging the validity and correctness of the order of dismissal.2. The brief facts of the case are:The petitioner was appointed as probationary clerk on 21-5-1979 and was confirmed in the said cadre on 4-12-1979. He was promoted as Jr. Management Officer (Grade I) with effect from 1-3-1989. On 28th August, 1989 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging violation of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1967 which is punishable under Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. An enquiry was held and the Inquiry Authority submitted a report as per Annexure-B dated 18-12-1990. On 27th February, 1991 the Deputy General Manager, Bangalore Circle Office, Bangalore who is the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findin...
Tag this Judgment!P. Venkateshwara Rao and Co. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1782; [2000]120STC602(Kar)
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The petitioner was subjected to tax on the turnover of Rs. 5,18,425 which was considered as stone ballast. The petitioner has entered into two types of contracts with railway authorities. One was for stacking the stone on the side of the railway line which was scattered and the only work done was to collect and stack in accordance with the directions given. The second type of contract was to obtain the ballast stone from the quarries belonging to the railway authorities on which royalty was paid. The assessing authority found that out of the total receipt of amount from the railway Rs. 8,98,987, the net collection of ballast from quarry is at Rs. 4,14,740. The assessing authority added 25 per cent to this figure and levied tax. The appellate authority vide its order dated March 28, 1995 considered the contract as that of works contract and not for supply of stone. The appeal was allowed. The revising authority under Section 22-A(1) reversed the order of the firs...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »