Karnataka Court February 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Galdi Abdul Khader Vs. the Tahsildar and Taluk Magistrate, Kundapura T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2107; 2002(3)KarLJ665
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition is a person who has, as of now a firearm licence issued tinder Rule 4 of the Arms Rules, 1962 indicated under the Arms Act, 1959 for possessing S.B.M.L.C. 116/3C.2. It appears, the said licence had been issued to the petitioner who is an agriculturist for the purpose of protecting the crops in his field which were subject to threats from forest animals like wild boars etc. The licence in favour of the petitioner has been renewed from time to time and it is the case of the petitioner that as of now, the said licence is valid upto 31-12-2003.3. It appears, at the instance of 4th respondent who is a neighbour, complaints had been registered before the Tahsildar and also before the local police that the petitioner is in the habit of threatening neighbours in view of certain pending property disputes between the parties and that the petitioner is of temperamental character and the 4th respondent apprehends for his safety and s...
Smt. H.T. Srimathi Rao Vs. Prafulla and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant255
ORDERM.P. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the petitioner's learned advocate on merits as also the learned advocate who represents the contesting caveators. A strong plea is advanced to the Court that if it can be demonstrated that the petitioner possessed or came to possess certain rights by virtue of the Will that the petitioner should not be non-suited only on the ground of gross delay or the principles of limitation. The real issue is far deeper insofar as the petitioner had filed the impleading application in the year 1994 at which point of time itself, that application was hopelessly belated because the original plaintiff had passed away in the year 1991. That application itself could not have ever been granted by the Court unless the Court was satisfied in some exceptional circumstances that there was valid ground for condonation of delay. What has thereafter aggravated of the position is that the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay after a lapse of another 7 yea...
Manicklal Verma and anr. Vs. Smt. Jamunadevi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant332; ILR2002KAR2347; 2002(4)KarLJ400
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners and the respondents.2. This is defendants' revision under Section 115 of the CPC. The suit is for possession of the suit property which has been valued at Rs. 14,00,000/- under Section 29 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act') and ad voleram Court fee of Rs. 26,875/- has been paid. By the impugned order, the Court below has held that the Court fee paid on the plaint was sufficient.3. The defendants disputed the valuation of the said suit property. The Court below, after examining the valuation given by the registered valuer and taking into account the age of the building which is about 60 years old, found that the Court fee paid on the plaint was sufficient.4. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant, the Trial Court has miserably erred in determining the market value of the subject-matter of the suit by not taking into consideration the relevant...
Smt. Karibasamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ535
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, this matter is taken up for hearing.2. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for both the parties.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a partition was effected on 29-1-1972 amongst the members of the joint family and each son was given his share in the joint family property. After the partition Benakappa and Halappa sold an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas to a third party. Thereafter, Benakappa alone purchased the said property back under a registered sale deed. Pursuant to the said sale deed, mutation entries were effected and the name of Benakappa was entered in the relevant RTC extracts. After the death of Benakappa his L.Rs made partition amongst the family members and applied for change of entries. Pursuant to that, mutation was effected under MR No. 8/95-96 and entries were made in the names of p...
Mysore Cements Ltd. and anr. Vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ530Kant
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari holding that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent as against the petitioner before the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate First Class, Turuvekere, in C.C. No. 523 of 2000 is void ab initio, without jurisdiction and illegal and consequently to quash the above said proceedings, i. e., taking cognizance of the offence and have further sought for dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent as per Annexure E urging various grounds.2. The first petitioner/company represented by its Managing Director and the second petitioner is the Director-Finance of the first petitioner-company have questioned the authority of the respondent in filing the complaint against them under Section 200, Cr.P.C. read with Section 29 of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (in short PB Act) for the alleged violation of the provisions of Sections 2(1)(iii)(a), 4(b), 6(d), 15 and 16, 19, 11, Rules 4(a)...
Ramanagouda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1067; 2002(2)KarLJ327
N.K. Jain, C.J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 45602 of 2001, dated 24-1-2002.2. It is stated that the appellant was removed from directorship vide Annexure-F, dated 27-11-2001 and the 3rd respondent was nominated as the Director of the 2nd respondent in place of the appellant. It is alleged that when once the appellant was nominated for a period of 5 years vide, order dated 26-9-1998, his Directorship term can be terminated only after expiry of the period. It is also stated that on earlier occasion, the cancellation order dated 28-10-1999 was challenged in the writ which was allowed and which was ultimately approved by this Court as State appeal was dismissed on 25-7-1999 and according to him his term will expire in the year 2004. But, now by the notification Annexure-F, dated 27-11-2001 the appellant has been removed from the post of Directorship. The same is challenged. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant a...
H.R. Vishwanath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant206; ILR2002KAR1320; 2002(3)KarLJ1
ORDER1. One Sri H.R. Vishwanath, a practising Advocate who hails from agricultural family of Halenahalli Village has filed this PIL. It is alleged that he followed the principles of non-violence even before he heard the names of Acharya Vinobha Bhave and Mahatma Gandhi. It is stated that the butchers who buy cattle for slaughtering purpose, are transporting them in lorries and tempos which is a most inhuman act. Thus slaughtering and transportation of cows is in violation of Article 48 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner has in this PIL prayed for a direction from this Court to the respondents for implementing-Article 48 of the Constitution of India and to give a direction to the 4th respondent to issue circulars to all the police stations of the State to take action against the erring persons who transport the cattle in lorries and tempos for slaughtering purpose.2. In response to the notice, learned Government Advocate submits that in view of the Karnataka Prevent...
State by Koppa Police Vs. M.P. Ganesha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2510; 2002(3)KarLJ570
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate who represents respondents 1 to 4.2. The principal ground on which the learned State Public Prosecutor has assailed the order of acquittal is that this is a case in which there are as many as 5 witnesses who deposed to the assault in question out of whom two, namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are injured and despite this, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused only on the ground of the inter se infirmities or inconsistencies. The submission that is canvassed is that the incident was of a short duration, that the parties knew each other, that they are virtually related, that unfortunately due to some dispute the incident took place and that there is therefore no question of mistaken identity etc. Consequently, what he submits is that even if the Court were to take a relatively lenient view for the aforesaid reasons that the order of acquittal is technically incorrect.3. Learned Advocate who repr...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B. Abdulla Kunhi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR456(KAR); [2002]257ITR456(Karn)
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The respondent-assesses is a partner of a partnership firm, Rehaman Saw Mills, having 1/3 share in the partnership. The partnership was dissolved by an agreement dated September 30, 1976. Total assets of the firm were valued at Rs. 40,00,000. The respondent-assesses, for the assessment year 1977-78, declared only one-third of the value of the estate of the extent of his share in the partnership firm. The appellate authority exercising the powers under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, revised the assessment orders and assessed the net value of the estate of the firm to an extent of Rs. 40,00,000 as liable for assessment.2. It was a disputed contention whether the assessee had become a full owner of the assets of the firm when dissolution took place on the last date of the valuation date, i.e., September 30, 1976. It was the contention of the assessee that he has become the full owner of the assets of the partnership firm only after the expiry of the valuatio...
icds Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Asstt.)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Kar)424; ILR2002KAR5304; [2002]258ITR635(KAR); [2002]258ITR635(Karn)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The substantial question of law involved in this appeal is :'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is liable to pay additional income-tax under Section 143(1A)(a) of the Act ?'2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. For the assessment year 1993-94, the appellant filed a return showing the total income (before deductions under Chapter VI-A) of Rs. 1,49,14,477. After scrutiny of the said return under Section 143(1A), the Assessing Officer sent an intimation to the appellant under Section 143(1)(a)(i) of the Act intimating levy of additional income-tax being at Rs. 4,15,018. The additional income-tax was levied by the Assessing Officer because of addition of Rs. 33,00,000 which the appellant has claimed as deduction under the head 'Interest tax'.3. After receiving ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »