Karnataka Court July 2001 Judgments
Ummal Alimabi Vs. Balakrishna Poojary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant456
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings in NCSR 394/91-92 and No. HSRR 12/ 2000/2001 pending before the Land Grant Committee, Puttur, who are respondents 3 and 4 respectively. Certified copies of those proceedings are not produced. But, I.A.I. is filed for dispensation of production of copies of those proceedings.2. Rule 9 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 of this Court prescribes as under :--'Every petition for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking to quash an order of any authority shall be accompanied by a certified or authenticated copy of the order sought to be quashed and where the proceedings have taken place before more than one authority, shall be accompanied by certified or authenticated copies of the order of all such authorities'.The petitioner has not produced either the certified copy or authenticated copy of the proceedings sought to be quashed. He has not produced any document to show that he ha...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Masood and Another Vs. State by Sanjayanagar Police, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1381; ILR2001KAR3881; 2001(5)KarLJ399
ORDERThe Court 1. Though the first petition (Cri. P. No. 1782 of 2001) is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the second petition (Cri. P. No. 1768 of 2001) is under Section 438 of the Cri. P.C., since both the petitions arise from Cri. No. 273 of 2001 of Sanjayanagar Police Station though against two different sets of accused for the same offence, as the consideration would be almost the same and the arguments are common, the same are taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. As per the investigation so far carried out leading to the allegations against the petitioners appears to be as follows: 3. On 26-5-2001 at about 9.30 p.m. on the information received that white petrol (an adulterant) is being unloaded at the petrol bunk of the petitioners in the first petition called as Foujdar Petrol Bunk in Sanjayanagar area, the Inspector of Police along with his staff rushed to the place and noticed unloading of petroleum produ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Krishnappa Vs. Thimmarayappa (Deceased) by L.Rs and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant470; 2001(6)KarLJ456
1. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 887 of 1987. The appellant is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of possession of the suit property consisting of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to one Thimma Bovi and was sold to one Muniswamappa under registered sale deed in the year 1969. In turn Muniswamappa sold the suit property to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 21-7-1969. The defendant and his elder brother, Muniswamy were assisting the plaintiff in their business, therefore, they were permitted to put up ahead and live in 'A' schedule property for some time. Later on when the constructions were taken up, the defendant was asked to vacate. There was a dispute. It is said that the heirs of Thimma Bovi set up the defendant and made him to file suits to claim right in the property and that the defendant has illegally ...
Tag this Judgment!ishwar Rama Gunaga Vs. Ramdas Anant Prabhu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3866; 2002(2)KarLJ565
G. Patribasavan Goud, J. 1. The appellant-complainant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kumta, dated 25-4-2001, in C.C. No. 1928 of 1996, by which, the respondent-accused has been acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short). 2. The appellant-complainant presented, on 31-10-1994 to the Bank for encashment, a cheque allegedly issued by the respondent in his favour for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. On 3-11-1994, the appellant-complainant received intimation regarding its dishonour. On 14-11-1994, he issued notice to the respondent-accused demanding payment of the amount. The said notice was served on the respondent-accused on 2-12-1994. The appellant-complainant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 12-12-1994. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the same day, i.e., on 12-12-1994, recorded the sworn statement, found sufficient ground to proceed, and dir...
Tag this Judgment!imtiaz Ahamed Alias Imtiaz Pasha Vs. State by Laxmipuram Police, Mysor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3790; 2002(3)KarLJ224
H.N. Narayan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore, against the appellant in S.C. No. 78 of 1995, holding him guilty ofmurdering his father-in-law and attempt on the life of his mother-in-law and wife, punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:P.W. 1-Sayeeda Begum is the wife of the deceased and P.W. 2-Jahanara is the daughter of the deceased and also the wife of the accused. P.W. 2 was married to the accused about ten years back and two children were born out of the said wedlock. P.W. 2 stayed with her husband along with the children at Bademakhane area and her parents are residing in Rahamania Mohalla. The accused was habituated to drinks. He used to ill-treat his wife. Initially he was doing coolie work, but later on, started doing mutton business by opening a mutton stall. But, the said business did not prosper on account ...
Tag this Judgment!Y.C. Susheela Devi and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant489; 2002(3)KarLJ413
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner constituted a partnership firm under a deed dated 27-8-1981. The firm purchased Site Nos. 65, 66, 67 and 68 in Prakash Nagar, Bangalore and put up a commercial complex known as Eswari Complex. The partnership underwent reconstitution and finally dissolved with effect from 1-4-1992. Since there were differences among the partners of erstwhile partnership firm in the matter of division of assets and liabilities, under Annexure-B, dated 25-5-1989 the partners decided to refer the matter to Arbitrator and an agreement to that effect was also entered into as per Annexure-C, dated 2-11-1992. As there was no mutual co-operation amongst the partners, Arbitration Case No. 14 of 1993 was filed on the file of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. By an order dated 20-4-1993 the Civil Court referred the matter to sole Arbitrator with a direction to submit an award within four months. Accordingly, the Arbitrator conducted arbitration proceedings after aff...
Tag this Judgment!Noorunisa Begum Vs. Muniobalappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3753; 2001(6)KarLJ465
1. Sri M.N. Sheshadri, learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 2 and 3.2. Learned Single Judge following the decision rendered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Kariyappa. V. The Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan and Ors., held that the land meant for house site is also hit by the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, and therefore, the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner to the contrary is not correct. The order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that the alienation by the original grantee is invalid as per the provisions of the said Act was upheld. We are not persuaded to take a different view in the matter. The expression 'land' as per the normal connotation of the term and the definition of 'granted land' under the aforementioned Act does embrace a smaller portion of land such as house site. The words and expressions not defined under the Scheduled Castes a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.R. Metrani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Kar)149; [2001]251ITR244(KAR); [2001]251ITR244(Karn); [2002]120TAXMAN612(Kar)
R. Gururajan, J.1. These references are at the instance of the Revenue as well as at the instance of the assessee. The facts and law involved in all these references are interrelated and hence we have heard all the three references together. A common order is passed in this order disposing of all these three references. The two references at the instance of the Revenue are I. T. R. C. Nos. 39 and 40 of 1996.Facts in I. T. R, C. No. 39 of 1996 :2. This reference relates to the assessment in the case of P. R. Metrani, a Hindu undivided family (for short 'the HUF') for the assessment year 1981-82. The assessment was initially concluded on September 17, 1984, in terms of Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act). The controversy relates to an income assessed for a sum of Rs. 19,95,117. A search was conducted by the Department in the residential premises of Metrani, viz., Ranganatha Nilaya, and during the search, documents were seized and based o...
Tag this Judgment!Kala Enterprises Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Assessme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4942; [2001]124STC704(Kar)
ORDERG. Parti Basavana Goud, J. 1. Heard on merits.2. The petitioner is proceeded against in a proceeding under Section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, for recovery of arrears of sales tax. Initially, notice was issued to the petitioner. Even though the said notice was not served, the learned Magistrate, relying upon a decision of this Court in [1977] 40 STC 320 ; (1977) 2 KLJ 80 (S. Dasappa and Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Mysore Circle), has found that no notice is necessary. He has accordingly directed issuing of fine levy warrant, aggrieved by which, the petitioner has approached this Court.3. This very decision relied upon by the learned Magistrate was referred to in a subsequent decision by a learned single Judge of this Court in Sapna Agencies v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Criminal Revision Petition No. 315 of 1993), disposed of on September 20, 1993. The learned single Judge, therein, pointed out as to how the law laid down in Dasappa's cape s...
Tag this Judgment!icici Limited, Bangalore Vs. the Passport Officer, Bangalore and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant118
ORDER1. This is an unusual writ petition filed by a Public Limited Company which is also a financial institution lending money to various institutions and individuals.2. It appears, the petitioner-institution had advanced certain amounts in favour of a Limited Company, the repayment of which had been guaranteed by respondents 2, 3 and 4. The borrower and the said respondents having defaulted in the repayment, petitioner-institution instituted proceedings for recovery of the same by filing O.A. No. 787 of 1998 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore.3. The respondents having failed to appear before the Tribunal, the original application filed by the petitioner-institution (O.A. No. 787 of 1998) appears to have been allowed and the Debt Recovery Tribunal is in the process of issuing Recovery Certificate in respect of respondents 2, 3 and 4.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Muneer Ahmed submits that the respondents 2 to 4 who owe large sums of money, are likely to go out ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »