Karnataka Court January 2000 Judgments
P. Ramlingam Vs. Y.B. Sannaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3124; 2000(2)KarLJ305
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 524 of 1993 has filed the above revision petition complaining that when P.W. 3, the scribe to the document spoke against the very document and against the interest of the plaintiff himself, he sought permission of the Court to treat the witness as hostile and such petition was refused. Hence, the present revision petition by the plaintiff.2. Heard the respective Counsel.3. Section 5 of the Evidence Act speaks about evidence to be given on facts in issue and relevant facts. It reads as follows:'Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts.--Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.Explanation.--This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure'.4. While discuss...
Tag this Judgment!Dadabuddappa Gouli Vs. Kalu Kanu Gouli and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant158; ILR2000KAR2835; 2000(2)KarLJ429
ORDER1. The defendant in O.S. No. 142 of 1995 has filed the above revision petition complaining about the witness, D.W. 3, who according to him, turned hostile and the Court below refused to grant such request and permission to treat the witness as hostile. Hence, the present revision petition by the defendant.2. Heard the respective Counsel.3. Section 5 of the Evidence Act speaks about evidence to be given on facts in issue and relevant facts. It reads as follows:'Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts.--Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.Explanation.--This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to civil procedure'.4. While discussing various types of witnesses, the nature of hostile witness i...
Tag this Judgment!Appu Alias Apoli Maistry Vs. State by Karkala Police, South Canara
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ28
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The short point that arises for determination in this criminal appeal centres around the interesting question as to whether, in the course of a sporadic assault that takes place between two persons obviously under the influence of alcohol and one that is preceded by a vocal altercation involving very offensive abuse, can be categorised as an offence of murder merely because the deceased has died on the spot. The issue arises out of an incident that took place at Kowdoor Village, Karkala on 21-7-1994 at about 8.00 p.m. The accused Appu alias Apoli Maistry and the deceased Appu Harijana had both come out of an arrack shop, the accused was riding a bicycle slowly and the deceased was walking behind him and the evidence indicates that they were abusing each other in very foul language. The accused is alleged to have knocked Appu down with his bicycle after which he lifted the bicycle and threw it on Appu. Thereafter, it is alleged that he lifted a stone M.O. 3 and assau...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Balaji and Co.,
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: [2000]246ITR750(KAR); [2000]246ITR750(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. In all these I. T. R. Cs. since the controversies are common, they are decided by this common order. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law : 2. In I. T. R. C. No. 4 of 1996, the following question of law has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'kist' amount payable to the Government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961?' 3. In I. T. R. C. No. 5 of 1996, the following question of law has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the changed provisions in the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, especially the provisions of Section 24 of the said Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'kist' amount payable to the Government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of provisions of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)171CTR(Kar)419; [2001]251ITR527(KAR); [2001]251ITR527(Karn); [2002]121TAXMAN1(Kar)
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated August 12, 1996, in respect of the assessment year 1989-90 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that excise duty refund is not assessable under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act ?'2. The facts of the case are that for the assessment year 1989-90, excise duty refund of Rs. 9,64,206 was brought to tax under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that though the assessee was in receipt of excise duty refund, the same cannot be brought to tax till the final decision of the Supreme Court before which the SLP filed is pending is obtained. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. O. S. Bajpai, ITO : [1976]105ITR864(All) and Rameshwar Pra...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Insulated Cable Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas380(Kar)
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant calls in question the correctness and validity of the order passed by the learned single judge in W. P. No. 16606 of 1990.2. The facts in brief are :The appellant is a public limited company declared to be a sick industry by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'BIFR') under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short). The Board is considering the proposal for revival. When the revival proposals were under the consideration of BIFR some of the depositors who deposited money with the appellant-company filed applications before the Company Law Board under Section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company Law Board allowed the applications of the depositors holding that the provisions of Section 22 of the Act are not attracted to the proceedings under Section 58A(9) of the Companies Act. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ petition. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Jindal Aluminium Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: [2002]126STC458(Kar)
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The revenue is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated March 22, 1999, in respect of the assessment years 1989-90 to 1993-94 (CST), wherein, the alleged suppression was deleted and the transactions were held as branch transfers and not inter-State sale. These proceedings emanated from reassessment orders, on the basis of the report of the Central Excise Department. The Central Excise Department, ultimately, dropped the proceedings and the contention of the assessee that there was no suppression, was accepted by the Central Excise Tribunal as well Before us, it is submitted that, the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the suppressed figures of sales estimated by the assessing authority and treating the transaction as branch transfers and not inter-State sales.2. Arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties heard and both these issues are dealt separately :Following five questions have been raised :(1) Whether, o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Balaji and Co. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-2000
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Kar)410
ORDERV.K. Singhal, JIn all these Income Tax Reference Cases since controversies are common, they are decided by this common order. The Tribunal has referred the following questions of law : i.e.,In ITRC No, 4/96, the following question of law has been referred:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'Kist' amount payable to the government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'In ITRC No. 5/96, the following question of law has been referred:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly having regard to the changed provisions in the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, especially the provisions of section 24 of the said Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that 'Kist' amount payable to the government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961'In ITRC...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Karanam Mallikarjuna Rao Vs. the Educational Appellate Tribunal, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2633; 2000(2)KarLJ169
ORDER1.The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Belgaum, which confirmed the order of termination by the management.2. The case of the petitioner was that he was serving as lecturer in Homeopathy at Homeopathic Medical College, Belgaum. He was initially appointed as lecturer in Biology. He further stated that he was appointed as lecturer in the first respondent-college on 12-9-1967. He is a graduate in Homeopathic Medicines and Surgery. He has worked to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. But, however, all of a sudden on 18-12-1979, he was communicated by an order under the signature of respondent 2 that his services as lecturer were terminated with immediate effect and that he should be considered as relieved on 18-12- 1979. He alleged that the order of termination was served on 19-12-1979. The order contained in No. GC/274, dated 19-11-1979 is violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 8 of the Act No. 10 of 1975. The second re...
Tag this Judgment!S. Suryanarayana Rao Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2377; ILR2000KAR1202; 2000(2)KarLJ419
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-2-1996 passed in Special Case No. 10 of 1987 by the Special Judge of Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as A.D.L.R. in Mangalore. P.W. 1 was looking after the property of his mother-in-law. On 16-7-1986, he had given an application to conductsurvey in respect of Sy. No. 187/2 as P.W. 1 was interested to fence the same. The application was given in the name of his mother-in- law. On that date, the appellant was not present in the office. On 22-7-1986, again P.W. 1 visited the office and made enquiry with the appellant as to what has happened to the application given by him. After some discussions, it appears that the appellant has demanded Rs. 150/- for completing th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »