Karnataka Court February 2002 Judgments
Devendrappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2867; I(2003)DMC317
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The appellant before us, Devendrappa is alleged to have picked up a quarrel with his wife Padmavathi at about 8 a.m. on the morning of 14.5.1997 when he pressurized her to bring money from her parents and when she expressed her inability, he doused her clothes with kerosene oil and set fire to them. Padmavathi screamed out for help and it is not very clear as to who exactly extinguished the flames but the accused ultimately took her to the hospital in a seriously burnt condition. Padmavathi had sustained about 63% burns though there is some difference of opinion with regard to the exact extent as one of the doctors has given the percentage as 40%, but the medical records show that on admission she had given the history of the burns to P.W. 9 Dr. Sharma. She had stated that pursuant to a quarrel her husband had poured kerosene on her clothes and set fire to them as a result of which she had sustained the burns. As it was a medico legal case, the hospital informed the...
Tag this Judgment!Shekarappa Veerappa Harayabal Vs. Mahammadsab Maliksab Nadaf
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant250; ILR2002KAR3411
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The appellant was the Plaintiff and respondent was the defendant in the trial Court for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial Court.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O. S. No. 86/90 for declaration that he is using prescriptive right over the portion marked as EFIJ in the hand-sketch produced and for permanent Injunction against the defendant. The defendant filed written statement resisting the suit and denying the case pleaded by the plaintiff. According to him, the hand-sketch is not correct and there is no road in the portion claimed by the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues. Both the parties led evidence by examining witnesses and producing documents. On appreciation of the material on record, the trial Court by Its judgment dated 23-11-1996 decreed the suit directing the defendant to keep open 4 feet width way in the portion EFIJ to have free access to the plaintiff to reach t...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal S. JaIn Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2066; [2002]257ITR31(KAR); [2002]257ITR31(Karn)
1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'I. T. Act' for short). For the assessment year 1995-96 (accounting period ended on March 31, 1995), the appellant filed his return on March 26, 1997, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,59,030. His return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on September 27, 1997. As it was a survey case, a notice under Section 143(2) was issued and after hearing, an order under Section 143(3) was passed on January 8, 1998. Under the said order, the total income was determined as Rs. 2,59,600. Income-tax thereon was calculated as Rs. 78,840 and after deducting Rs. 1,193 as rebate under Section 88, the tax payable was arrived at as Rs. 77,647. A sum of Rs. 77,181 was added as interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C. Thus, the total amount payable was shown as Rs. 1,54,828. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of assessment, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Act on April 23, 1998.2. The Kar Vivad Samad...
Tag this Judgment!Mangilal S. JaIn Vs. Cit and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2002
Reported in: (2002)175CTR(Kar)347
By the CourtPetitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For the assessment year 1995-96 (accounting period ended 31-3-1995), the appellant filed his return on 26-3-1997, declaring a total income of Rs. 2,59,030. His return was processed under section 143(1)(a) on 27-9-1997. As it was a survey case, a notice under section 143(2) was issued and after hearing, an order under section 143(3) was passed on 8-1-1998. Under the said order, the total income was determined as Rs. 2,59,600. Income-tax thereon was calculated as Rs. 78,840 and after deducting Rs. 1,193 as rebate under section 88, the tax payable was arrived at Rs. 77,647. A sum of Rs. 77,181 was added as interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C. Thus, total amount payable was shown as Rs. 1,54,828. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of assessment, petitioner filed a revision petition under section 264 of the Act on 23-4-1998.2. The Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!Thirthamurthy Vs. Smt. Radha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: II(2002)ACC479; 2003ACJ537; 2002(94)ELT588(Kar); ILR2002KAR3005; 2002(4)KarLJ168
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal is listed for admission after issue of notice.2. This appeal by the employer preferred under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the order dated 13-1-2000 passed by the Labour Officer and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan. The employer, aggrieved by the order awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,05,895A with further interest at 12% on this amount from the date of the accident till the date of deposit of the amount awarded has challenged the award on several grounds.3. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are that one Rangaiah aged about 28 years died on 11-3-1994 due to the falling of a tree which was located in the estate of the appellant and which fell on the person while it was in the process of being cut and removed by a person who had been authorised by the employer. That the death of the person was due to this incident is not in dispute. The wife of the deceased filed an appli...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar K.S. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ528; ILR2002KAR3931; 2002(4)KarLJ103
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Heard Sri KM. Nataraj, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.C. Muddappa, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent/complainant, he remained absent.2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that the 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner after availing loan for purchase of vehicle under hire-purchase agreement defaulted in payment of monthly instalments. It is further alleged that the petitioner had an intention to cheat by handing over the vehicle to a third party. It also sought for search warrant to direct the Inspector of Police to produce the said vehicle before Court. After receipt of this complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court), Man-galore, registered a case in C.C. No. 18585 of 1997 and took cognizance of the offence and recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 18-8-1997. On 20-8-1997 on the application...
Tag this Judgment!State by Alur Police Vs. Rangaswamy Alias Narayanagowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ607; 2002(4)KarLJ412
1. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor as also the learned Advocate who has been appointed amicus curiae on behalf of the accused-respondents on merits. The accused have been served but have not appeared and are unrepresented and it is for this reason that the Court was requested to appoint an amicus curiae Counsel.2. Briefly stated, the prosecution alleges that at about 11 a.m. on 17-3-1995 at Chigalur village, that the 4 accused persons came to the house of P.W. 5, Jayamma. They are alleged to have got into an argument with her and demanded that the complaint which had been lodged against them with the police by her husband must be withdrawn. They also threatened her with dire consequences if this was not done and according to her because she refused to agree to the withdrawal that they forcibly dragged her into the bushes close by and that between the 4 accused they overpowered her and that she was raped by two of them one after the other while the remaining...
Tag this Judgment!State by Psi, Malpe Police Station, Mangalore Vs. Sheku Alias Shekhara ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2148; 2002(5)KarLJ25
1. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate E.R. Diwakar who was appointed as Arnicas Curiae by the Court on behalf of respondents-accused. Despite service of notice from this Court the accused have not only remained absent but they were also unrepresented. After hearing the appellant's learned Counsel we were of the view that the appeal will have to be allowed and consequently appointed an Amicus Curiae Counsel and adjourned the hearing to enable the respondents' learned Counsel to get ready with the case.2. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides. The appellant's learned Counsel has pointed out to us that P.Ws. 1 and 2 both of whom were injured and their friends have supported their versions and no independent witnesses have been examined. His submission is that in a case of the present type where the evidence of the injured persons is perfectly good and acceptable and where the medical evidence corroborates their testimony, that ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivangouda Sannalingangowda Patil (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. Godigevva Al ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ497
V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The appellant and 8th respondent were the plaintiffs and other respondents were the defendants in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank, in the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 16 of 1975, which was later numbere,d as O.S. No. 6 of 1979 after transfer, for possession of suit Schedules 'B' and 'C' properties and for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs and 7th defendant are the legal heirs of their father and defendants 1 to 4 are not legal heirs and since defendants 1 to 4 did not handover possession of the suit lands to the plaintiffs, suit is filed. The defendants resisted by filing written statement denying the case pleaded by the plaintiffs and contending that they are the legal heirs of Veeranagouda, who married the mother of defendants 1 to 4. It is stated that the Government has regranted the land in their favour. The .defendants 1 to 4 have prayed for di...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Shivaraj and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2493
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The law with regard to dying declarations has been the subject- matter of several decisions wherein the Courts have had occasion to expound different facets of the legalities and this appeal has thrown up for consideration one more very useful angle. We have had the benefit of two very competent counsel on either side who have very ably contributed towards the resolution of the issues involved which in our considered view virtually and one more dimension to the law. Briefly stated, the question that fell for determination arose out of an unusual situation insofar as the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as the I.O.) submitted a written request to the doctor of the hospital where the injured person had been taken that the doctor should accord permission for recording the statement of dying declaration as the case may be since the injured was in a precarious condition and this request was conveyed in the form of an application which also effectively desir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »