Karnataka Court February 2000 Judgments
B.A. Harish Gowda Vs. P. Lankesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2657; 2000(5)KarLJ283
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This petition is filed by the complainant, challenging the order dated 4-9-1999, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crl. R.P. No. 260 of 1999, reversing the order dated 26-7-1999 passed by the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in CC No. 5295 of 1998 on I.A. II filed by the accused-respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner has presented a complaint in PCR No. 1031 of 1998 under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. against the respondent and others, for punishing them for the offences punishable under Section 500 of the IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused published certain articles in a Kannada Weekly, 'Lankesh Patrike' in three issues, making certain imputations against the petitioner who was the then Director of P.U. Education Department of State of Karnataka. On 25-11-1998, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance; recorded the sworn statements and ordered for...
Tag this Judgment!Guna Alias Koonumuthu and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3233; 2000(6)KarLJ1
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of W.P. (HC) Nos. 130 to 169 of 1999 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases. The facts are taken from W.P. No. 130 of 1999.2. The common thread running through all these cases is that Veerappan and his gang were involved in sandalwood smuggling and elephant poaching activities in the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. In committing the crimes Veerappan and his gang were alleged to have used various types of weapons and explosive materials like gelatin. Apart from committing numerous crimes in the cases in which offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (for short, the 'TADA Act') are involved, they are said to have attacked police patrolling parties as also police stations by planning and organising ambushes, placing mine fields and so on. By causing explosions to take place when police convoys passed through and thereafter attacking the stranded police personnel, number...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvathamma Vs. Smt. Kalamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ72
ORDER1. The 4th defendant in O.S. No. 16 of 1978 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Tiptur (originally filed as O.S. No. 1 of 1975) is questioning the order passed by the First Appellate Court, wherein the Appellate Court has permitted the plaintiff in the above suit to withdraw the above suit and dismissed the appeal as having become infructuous.2. The suit was one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff 1/3rd share which was dismissed by the Trial Court. An appeal appears to have been preferred by the plaintiff against the dismissal of the suit and while appeal was pending, he, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 3 seeking permission to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit with regard to the same subject-matter. This application was allowed permitting the plaintiff/the 1st respondent herein to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit with regard to the same subject-matter. Questioning such order, the C.R.P. in C.R.P. No. 2101 of 1985 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Appiamma Vs. Lawrance D'Souza
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant246
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. This revision petition is against an order passed on I. A. 12 by the trial Court directing break open the lock if the lock is found to be put on the portion to be deliveredin the execution of a decree for possession.2. Prima facie I feel that the C. R. P. is not maintainable against such an order. Section 115, reads as follows :'Revision.-- (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal is thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears-- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity; the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit :Provided that the High Court shall not under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.J. Shetty Family Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR406(KAR); [2001]250ITR406(Karn); [2002]120TAXMAN260(Kar)
K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated October 5, 1994, in respect of the assessment year 1984-85 :'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 the provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The fads as stated by the Tribunal are that the assessee is a private trust in which shares of the beneficiaries are determinate and it carries on business in liquor line. For the assessment year 1984-85, the Assessing Officer disallowed under Section 43B the unpaid 'kist' amount holding that 'kist' should actually be considered as tax or duty. The assessee went on appeal contending that the kist p...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Comfund Financial Services
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR143(KAR); [2000]245ITR143(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. The Revenue has filed this application with the prayer that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be directed to refer the following question of law arising out of its order dated September 30, 1997 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the remission of Rs. 44,69,88,170 by the Deutsche Bank is on capital account and not chargeable to tax under Section 41(1) or 28(iv) in spite of the fact that the purchases which were so remitted were claimed by the assessee as a revenue expenditure in the same assessment year ?'2. The application submitted by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) was dismissed on the ground that the finding which has been given by the Tribunal is of fact as to the nature of the amount remitted by the DeutscheHank and other considerations following mainly the judgment of the Supreme Court referred by the Tribunal.3. The facts of the case are that there was a waiver of Rs. 47.3 crores by the...
Tag this Judgment!Mittal Investment Corporation Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercia ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: [2001]121STC14(Kar)
V.K. Singhal, J. 1. Application for review of the judgment in S.T.A. Nos. 35-38 of 1998 dated September 24, 1999 has been moved alleging certain factual and legal mistakes.2. Argument of both the learned counsel for the parties on the application filed for review as well as merit heard.3. The present dispute is in respect of reassessment for the year 1987-88 and assessment from 1988-89 to 1990-91. The assessments framed were set aside by the appellate authority in which the clarifications of the Commissioner dated April 28, 1989 and September 15, 1993 were also taken into consideration. The revising authority found that there was no composite sale of land and the building thereon and that the agreement by the appellant with the persons who have agreed to take shops, godowns, garages, etc., proposed to be constructed were in the nature of works contract. For building contract it was considered that it is not necessary that the contract or should have absolute ownership of the land. It i...
Tag this Judgment!C. Lakshmipathi (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Smt. Bhanumathi and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ121
ORDER1. This revision under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('the Act' for short) is directed against the order dated 2-9-1992 of the Chief Judge of Small Causes at Bangalore City in H.R.C. No. 1971 of 1983 dismissing the landlord's eviction petition under Section 21(1) (a)and (h) of the Act. Revision petitioner herein is the landlord and petitioner in the eviction proceedings. Respondents are tenants. I shall hereinafter refer to them as they are arrayed in the eviction petition for the purpose of convenience.2. Briefly stated the facts are:Petitioner-deceased Laxmipathi is the owner of the premises bearing No. 15, Poornaprasad Compound, High Grounds, Race Course Road, Bangalore City. There are more than one tenements in the said compound and the petitioner lives in one of the portions, other portions are leased to several other persons. It emerges from the pleadings and as well from the evidence that one Kantamma, sister of the deceased petitioner-Laxmipathi lives in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kannambadi Sreenivasa Iyengar's Sri Harihareswara Devasthana Trust and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant356; ILR2000KAR3201; 2001(4)KarLJ264
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed challenging the orders passed on Issue No. 7, dated 9-4-1999 in O.S. No. 418 of 1994.2. The 1st petitioner, a Public Trust, was constituted in the year 1924. Petitioners 2 to 11 are Honorary Trustees duly appointed by the learned District Judge, Mysore, in terms of the scheme framed in O.S. No. 12 of 1979. The suit schedule property was the trust property. The same was managed by one Sri M.S. Madappa (original trustee). Subsequent to his death, his son the 1st defendant has sold by the trust or property to one Mallikarjunappa. The respondents 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Mallikarjunappa. They, in turn, have mortgaged the same to respondent 6-a tenant.3. Petitioners filed on O.S. No. 418 of 1994 seeking for various reliefs, including the relief of declaration, declaring that the sale deed dated 31-10-1971 executed by defendant 1 in favour of late Mallikarjunappa, husband of defendant 2 and father of defendants 3 to 5, as null and void and the sam...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.K.P., Narayanapur Vs. Rayanago ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ638
ORDER1.This appeal is delayed by 43 days in the matter of filing.This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 3-2-1990 passed by the District Judge, Raichur, in appeal number M.F.A. No. 137 of 1989 and the District Judge affirmed the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Kaichur in L.A.C. No. 48 of 1979.2. This appeal was filed on 30th June, 1990, but without filing the certified copy of the award and judgment of the Court of Reference, namely, Civil Judge, Raichur dated 6-2-1982.The Registry of this Court returned the appeal for being refiled with complete papers, that is including the certified copy of the judgment and award of the Reference Court as well, and it appears it was refiled some time in December 1999, along with application for condonation of delay in refiling.3. The delay in refiling has been to the tune of 3,418 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the certified copy of the judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »