Karnataka Court December 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Kar)23; [2003]264ITR142(KAR); [2003]264ITR142(Karn)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. In the present appeals, the assessee is an association of persons comprised of three members (in short the AOP-3). These appeals relate to the asst, yr. 1995-96. These members were the erstwhile partners of the dissolved firm which was carrying on business of manufacturing Beedies under the firm name 'M/s Mangalore Ganesha Beedi Works'. The firm was comprised of 13 partners. It stood dissolved on 6th Dec., 1987, by efflux of time. Thereafter, the business was carried on behalf of all the erstwhile partners as an AOP till the affairs of the firm was finally wound up. The assets of the firm were ultimately sold to the present assessee under the orders of this Court in a winding up proceedings on 20th Nov., 1994. On and from 21st Nov., 1994, the business of the erstwhile dissolved firm became that of the present assessee. Thus during previous year for the asst, yr. 1995-96, from 1st April, 1994 to 20th Nov., 1994, the business was being carried for and on behalf of all ...
Tag this Judgment!U. Subba Rao and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC102
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Mangalore in S.C. No. 179/ 1996. The accused persons were charge-sheeted for committing offences punishable Under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. Accused 1, 2 and 4 are acquitted for the charge Under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. But, convicted for committing offences punishable Under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default, S.I for a period of 15 days. Being aggrieved the present appeal is filed.2. According to the prosecution case, one Smt. Mahalakshmi is the deceased, wife of accused No. 3, who is acquitted. The appellants 1 and 2 are the parents of accused No. 3. The third appellant is the daughter of appellants 1 and 2. The marriage of the deceased with third accused took place on 1.4.1994 at Kalasa. There is no allegation of payment of dowry at the time of ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Devi Kumari and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ927
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned counsel in both these appeals or rather in the M.F.A. filed by the insurance company and the owner and the cross-objections filed by the original claimants which have been separately numbered as the companion M.F.A. A very interesting, rather unusual but important aspect of the law has been thrown up before us which we shall summarise. The owner, though served before the Tribunal did not appear nor did he contest and he was placed ex parte. The insurance company has contested the claims on merits and being aggrieved by the order passed by the Claims Tribunal, the insurance company and the owner have filed M.F.A. No. 2469 of 1995. It is not as though the owner is not a party as often happens, but in this instance the owner is a co-appellant. We need to also clarify that despite the owner not having contested before the Claims Tribunal that the insurer was permitted by the Tribunal to cross-examine and to contest on merits. The respondents' l...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Ponnappa Vs. State by Napoklu Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1728; 2003(2)KarLJ408
H.N. Narayan, J.1. This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded against him by the learned Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, in a judgment dated 30-11-1999 in S.C. No. 48 of 1995. Initially, this case was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, who framed the charges against the accused and tried the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. Since the Additional Court was shifted from Madikeri, the matter was taken over by the learned Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, who after hearing the learned Counsels on both sides passed the impugned judgment of conviction.2. The facts giving raise to this appeal in brief are as under:Deceased Muthappa and the accused Ponnappa were the two sons of late Ganapathi, a resident of Cheyyandane Village who was essentially an agriculturist owning certain extent of coffee and wetlands at...
Tag this Judgment!Baby Kumar Alias Janardhana Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1425; 2003(2)KarLJ133
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 52 of 1995 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore. The appellant is the accused charge-sheeted for committing offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of the IPC. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the accused is convicted for the offence under Sections 504 and 307 of the IPC and sentenced to S.I. for a period of three months for committing an offence under Section 504 of the. IPC. The accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and to undergo R.I. for a period of five years for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused should undergo R.I. for a period of two years. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The accused is in judicial custody between 22-1-1995 to 9-2-1995 and from 1-7-1998 to 10-7-1998. The said period is given set off under Section 428 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Abdul Ala Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, South Zone
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ999; 2003(3)KarLJ290
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C., for grant of bail. 2. The petitioner who is accused 1 along with 5 others charge-sheeted for committing offences punishable under Sections 80, 21, 25, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to 'NDPS Act' for short), by the Narcotic Control Bureau, South Zone, Chennai, in Special Case No. 24 of 2000 on the file of the Sessions Judge, for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Bangalore City. The petitioner seeks bail on medical ground as well as on the ground of delay that trial is not concluded even after a lapse of 3 years. 3. Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner confines his arguments to grant bail on medical grounds without reference to merits or delay in conclusion of the trial. 4. Sri Urval N. Ramanand, Special Public Prosecutor for Central Government, filed detailed objections and opposed to grant bail. 5. The co...
Tag this Judgment!Monika Sanctis Vs. Henry Joseph and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2081; 2003(2)KarLJ588
1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act read with Section 19 of the Family Court Act directed against the order dated 8-3-1999 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bangalore in M.C. No. 117 of 1998 allowing the petition of the wife under Sections 10 and 11 of the Divorce Act partially and granting a decree for judicial separation.2. The wife being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, refusing her the full relief of dissolution of marriage and denying her a decree of divorce has come up in appeal.3. The first respondent-husband remained absent before the Court below and was set ex parte. The second respondent with whom it was alleged that the first respondent-husband was having an adulterous relationship had also been served but remained absent and has been set ex parte by the Court below.4. The position is the same in this appeal and the respondents have not contested the proceedings though served.5. The petition pleadi...
Tag this Judgment!Shrirahatti, M.A. Vs. N.G.E.F. Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ1004Kant
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 26896/2001(8) dated April 16, 2001 has preferred this writ appeal.2. The appellant was an employee of N.G.E.F. Ltd.. Bangalore respondent herein. The appellant joined the service in the year 1975 and was appointed as a Section officer. The respondent allotted the company quarters in N.G.E.F. in the year 1990. The appellant was residing in the premises. The respondent issued notice dated March 13, 1996 to vacate the premises within one month. Eviction proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 against the appellant. The Competent Officer passed an order of eviction on September 10, 1997 directing the appellant to vacate the premises on or before October 25, 1997. The appellant preferred writ petition before this Court. This Court granted six months' time to the appellant to vacate t...
Tag this Judgment!M.T. Manjunatha Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1962; 2003(1)KarLJ475
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The petitioner who is working as a Lecturer in economics under the 2nd respondent-management has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 31-1-2000 in Petition No. 100 of 2000.2. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is an aided institution and his appointment has been approved by the 1st respondent also. As the salary payable to him was not paid in accordance with the UGC scale, he approached the 2nd respondent-management to pay the same. As the petitioner's request was not considered by the 2nd respondent by invoking Section 133 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the petitioner presented a Petition No. 100 of 2000 which petition has been disposed of by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-B to the writ petition dated 31-1-2001 which reads as hereunder:...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Acquisition Officer/Assistant Commissioner Vs. Kopresh Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2320; 2003(2)KarLJ186
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, in LAC No. 54 of 1997.2. The facts very briefly are.--The property in question related to 15 acres 25 guntas and 17 acres 26 guntas in Sy. Nos. 138 and 125 of Ramadurga Village, Devadurga Taluk of Raichur District. The preliminary notification is dated 4-2-1993. The purpose of acquisition was for the construction of balancing reservoir. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 7,000/- per acre. The matter went before the Reference Court for enhancement of compensation. The learned Civil Judge granted Rs. 52,500/- per acre. This was done on the basis of Ex. P. 4, award made in LAC Nos. 151 to 159 of 1997.3. Aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation, the State is before us.4. An affidavit has been filed by the claimant-respondent stating that the land was acquired by the State for construction of balancing reservoir. Vast land had be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »