Karnataka Court April 2001 Judgments
S. Pratap Kumar Vs. Thamas B. Choudi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant248
1. The crucial question involved herein is as to whether a second appeal can He to this High Court against an order granting, refusing or revoking succession certificate sought to be obtained under Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the Central Act)?2. According to the appellant, he is the brother of one Smt. S. Sugandha Neelavathy, who while still working in Government dispensary at Brucepet, Bellary, died on 27-9-1998. The present appellant and the 2nd respondent on the strength of an alleged registered Will dt. 13-9-1998 filed an appli-cation under Section 372 of the Central Act for grant of succession certificate in order to receive the service benefits of their sister. Similar application was also filed by the 1st respondent, who happens to be the husband of Smt. Sugandha Neelavathy. Both the application were heard by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division), who by his order dt. 22-11-1997 rejected the application filed by the appellant along with the 2nd respond...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Govindappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-17-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1102
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.8.1997 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in M.V.C. No. 479 of 1990 and questioning the quantum of compensation and also the liability to pay the compensation awarded, the insurer of the offending vehicle, i.e., bus bearing No. CNZ 4820 has come forward with the above appeal.2. The accident had occurred on 17.2.90 at about 6 p.m. near Basamma Temple on Magadi-Ramanagaram Road involving the motor cycle bearing registration No. MEM 2638 and the bus bearing No. CNZ 4820. It is alleged that on the date of accident, the deceased G. Gangadharaiah was proceeding as a pillion rider on the said motor cycle and at that time the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle as a result of the same, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and he succumbed to injur...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Tayal and Others Vs. State by Ashoknagar Police Station, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ601
ORDER1. This petition filed challenging the registration of FIR in Cr. No. 97 of 2001 by the Inspector of Ashoknagar Police and continuation of investigation in the said case. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ulsoor-gate Sub-Division on 10-2-2001 made surprise check of the premises of E.T. Club, Residency Road, Bangalore and found that as many as 26 children ranging age group between 13 to 19 wore being served with liquor. The petitioners 1, 4 and 2 are the accused who were said to be the Managing Committee Members of the Club and petitioners 3, 5 and 6 are the employees who said to have served the liquors to the children, contrary to the provisions of Sections 36(1)(g) and 38-A of the Karnataka Excise Act read with Rules 10(1)(e) and 11 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967. Under the provisions of Section 36(1)(g) of the Act shall on conviction be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred...
Tag this Judgment!Chakravarthy Vs. State by Koramangala Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3203; 2001(6)KarLJ499
The Court 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in S.C. No. 280 of 1995, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to pay the fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. Deceased is the father of the accused. Initially the appellant and his mother, C.W. 14 were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively. But, the appellant's mother was discharged by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground of insufficient material to try her for an offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was a private medical practitioner at Koramangala extension, a prime resid...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Comfund Services India Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: (2001)167CTR(Kar)523; [2001]252ITR309(KAR); [2001]252ITR309(Karn); [2002]120TAXMAN688(Kar)
R. Gururajan, J.1. The Revenue has come up by way of this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking for a reference of the following questions of law from this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the loss of Rs. 18,23,82,925 on account of write off of 1.2 crores units of the Unit Trust of India was not a double claim ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that an adjustment loss of Rs. 7,55,31,164 on account of fictitious sale and interest on loan and capital loss on account of dealing with Videocon International Ltd., was not a double claim ?'2. The brief facts of the case resulting in this petition are as under : The assessee filed a return of income on December 29, 1993, declaring loss of Rs. 50,74,40,280. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) determining the loss...
Tag this Judgment!Gulzar Khan Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3586
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking for grant of the relief to declare that the notification as per Annexure-C dt. 2-6-1995 does not empower the second respondent to conduct prosecution case in Spl. C.C. No. 22/96 in the Court of the prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, Rural District and further sought for issuance of a Writ in the nature of quowarranto or any other writ or writs directing the respondents to specify under what legal authority the second respondent is empowered or entitled to conduct the prosecution case in Spl. C.C. No. 22/1996 in the Court referred to supra in which case the second respondent is conducting the case involving a charge under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (in short called as 'Act') and further to issue a direction ousting him from such conduct and award costs of the proceedings urging various facts and legal contentions.2. Brief facts necessary f...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Mangalagowri Vs. H.N. Keshava Murthy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1989; 2001(4)KarLJ520
1. M.F.A. No. 3918 of 1999 is by defendant 3 and M.F.A. No. 5160 of 1999 is by defendants 1 and 2 challenging the order passed by the Trial Court on I.A. No. I filed by the plaintiff (respondent 1 herein) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code in O.S. No. 4252 of 1999 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore.2. The parties in these appeals are referred to as arrayed in the Trial Court.3. The plaintiff has filed a suit against defendants 1 to 3 and others for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property. In the said suit the plaintiff has made the application for an order of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to restrain defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The said application was resisted by defendants 1 to 3. The learned City Civil Judge after hearing both the parties granted injunct...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, Raichur Vs. Mahad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ316
The Court 1. This is an appeal preferred by the State against the judgment and award passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raichur in LAC No. 189 of 1998, dated 17-4-1999 filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act questioning the legality and validity of the said judgment and award in enhancing the market value of the land of the first respondent from Us. 9,000/- per acre as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 74.000/- per acre.2. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are that several extents of lands in S. Nos. 194/A1, 194/A2, 193, 193/U, 193/E, 192/A, 201/2, 221/A and 229 etc., in all seven different pieces of land situated in Korvi Village of Manvi Taluk came to be acquired by issue of a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 18-8-1994. These lands belonged to seven different persons. The first respondent owned an extent of one acre twenty guntas in Section No. 221/A amongst the seven pieces of lands acquired under the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Abdul Ala Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Sou ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3244; 2002(1)KarLJ417
ORDERThe Court 1. Sri Urval N. Ramanand, Central Special Government Pleader to take notice for respondent 1.2. In the present petition the important right of the accused to have the dignity and self respect is projected. The petitioner/accused in Special Case No. 24 of 2000 on the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge made an application to the Trial Court to permit him to wear chappals as he is suffering from disease and he cannot walk with bare foot. The allegations are made against the escort staff of the under-trial prisoners that they are preventing the under-trial prisoners from wearing chappals when they are taken out of the jails to attend the Courts. The Sessions Judge taking a myopic and narrow view in the matter rejected the request on the ground that sufficient medical evidence is not produced to support the contention of the petitioner that it is essential for him to walk with chappals or shoes and that he cannot walk with bare foot.3. After hearing the Couns...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Coffee Curing Works Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC207(Kar)
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the petitioner's learned counsel at considerable length and we have also heard the learned Government Advocate who represents the respondent in detail and on merits. For all intents and purposes, these petitions were more than fully argued and this Court would have decided the same on merits, as it would have been required to do. Towards the fag end of the argument however one aspect surfaced which brought to our immediate notice the fact that the petitioner may be placed in an incongruous position if we were to decide these petitions on merits one way or the other because what was submitted by the petitioner's learned counsel was that on a verification of the records from his client's possession it is confirmed that the appeals whereby the petitioners have questioned the validity of the tax imposed on them are yet to be decided by the Tribunal. Therefore, if for any reason the petitioners were to loose on merits before this Court and, on the othe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »