Karnataka Court August 2002 Judgments
Shekarayya Ningayya Tavarageri and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ134
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J. 1. This is the claimants' appeal being dissatisfied with the determination of the market value in L.A.C. No. 40 of 1998, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot, dated 30-9-2000, determining' the market-value at Rs. 75,000-00 per acre. 2. The lands of the claimants measuring 9 acres 18 guntas in Sy. No. 334/1, 24 guntas in Sy. No. 335/1 and 6 acres 1 guntas in Sy. No. 336/1, situated at Hungund Village was acquired for house sites by a notification dated 20-2-1986 followed by another notification dated 10-4-1986. The possession was taken on 19-3-1987. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market-value at Rs. 6,000-00 per acre. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimants filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) for referring the matter to the Civil Court. On reference, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot, deter...
Tag this Judgment!M. Lakshmipathi Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)1; I(2003)BC328; 2003CriLJ354; 2002(5)KarLJ451
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. This petition is filed against the judgment of conviction dated 10-2-2000 passed in C.C. No. 24777 of 1991 by the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The petitioner is the accused and he was charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and after trial, he was found to be guilty and convicted. Accordingly, sentence of fine to an extent of cheque amount and three years imprisonment is imposed by the Trial Court. The Sessions Judge in Cri. A. No. 15017 of 2000 has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the present revision petition is filed. 2. The provisions of ESI Act cover the petitioner's establishment. There appears to be some default in remitting ESI contributions. A cheque dated 13-6-1990 for Rs. 63,134/- was issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent-Corporation. The cheque came to be dishonoured. A statutory legal notice under Section 138(c) of the Nego...
Tag this Judgment!institute of Education Vs. Sowcar A. Siddanna Endowment and K.H. Ramai ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: [2003]126TAXMAN181(Kar)
These regular second appeals are filed by the defendant 3 and defendants 1 and 2 respectively, aggrieved of the impugned judgment and decrees passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mysore in R.A. Nos. 45 and 46/1990 in dismissing the appeals and confirming the judgment and decree of the First Additional Civil Judge, Mysore in O.S. No. 100/74 dated 9-12-1982, framing substantial questions of law in both the memorandum of appeals filed by the defendants urging various contentions. They have prayed to allow the appeals R.A. Nos. 45 and 46/1990 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Mysore in O.S. No. 100/74 dated 9-12-1982.2. The rank of the parties is referred to in this judgment as has been referred to in the trial court for the sake of convenience.3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to declare that Sri Sowcar A. Siddanna Endowment and Sri K.H. Ramaiah Memorial Endowment Trust is the owner of the suit schedule property and...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. A. Ebenezer Vs. State by Station House Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ265; ILR2002KAR5003; 2003(6)KarLJ171
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 18070 of 2001. On a private complaint, a case is registered against the accused/petitioner for committing offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 and 313 of the IPC. The complainant/victim claims to be the wife of the petitioner, according to the complaint. After checkered rounds of litigation before this Court and Apex Court, ultimately the Trial Court, after recording sworn statements, issued process against the petitioner for his appearance. On the date of appearance, the Counsel appearing for petitioner made an application for exemption under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. along with medical certificate to show that the petitioner is admitted in hospital and he is under treatment. The Trial Court by the impugned order rejects the application on the ground that the other side opposes the application and thus directs issuance of NBW.2. The Counsel for the petitioner relied on the ruling of the Full Bench of Andhra Pr...
Tag this Judgment!institute of Education and Etc. Vs. Sri Sowcar A. Siddanna Endowment a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant226; (2003)181CTR(Kar)264
V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. These Regular Second Appeals are filed by the defendant 3 and defendants 1 and 2 respectively, aggrieved of the Impugned judgment and decrees passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mysore in R.A. Nos. 45 and 46/1990 in dismissing the appeals and confirming the judgment and decree of the First Additional Civil Judge, Mysore in O.S. No. 100/174 dated 9-12-1982, framing substantial questions of law in both the Memorandum of appeals filed by the defendants urging various contentions. They have prayed to allow the appeals. R.A. Nos. 45 and 46/90 by setting aside the Judgment and decree passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Mysore in O.S. No. 100/74 dated 9-12-1982.2. The rank of the parties is referred to in this judgment as has been referred to in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to declare that Sri. Sowcar A. Siddanna Endowment and Sri. K.H. Ramaiah Memorial Endowment Trust is the owner of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhara Bhat Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4473; 2002(5)KarLJ454
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. The matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent 3 as also the learned Government Pleader.2. The petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 20th March, 2001 in No. CDS RAP 64/99-2000. The case of the petitioner is that he and his predecessors have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of certain Kadim warg lands touching the schedule property. The schedule property has been used since time immemorial for the purposes subservient to agriculture like collection of green manure, leaves and firewood and for collection of soil to the areca-nut garden in the very land and they were enjoying the said property as kumki land. When things stood thus, the 3rd respondent has made attempt to encroach the alleged kumki land as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed O.S. No. 378 of 1979 on the file of the Civil J...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Narasegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: [2004]267ITR766(KAR); [2004]267ITR766(Karn)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The question of law raised in the present appeal is :'Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the kist amount payable by the assessee to the State Government which has not been actually paid cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the Act in view of the judgment of this hon'ble court ?'2. Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellants, fairly concedes that the issue raised in these appeals has been answered by a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Sri Balaji and Co. : [2000]246ITR750(KAR) , wherein it has been held that (page 761) :'The provisions of Section 17 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, have referred to the power to grant lease of the right to manufacture. Section 24 has conferred the additional power on the State Government to accept payment of a sum or levy such licence fee or privilege fee as may be prescribed, in consideration of grant of lease or licence or both, by or under this Act. This power is i...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-2002
Reported in: [2007]293ITR113(KAR); [2007]293ITR113(Karn)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present references have been made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the department. These references retain to the assessment years 1979-80, 1981-82 to 1985-86. The questions of law required to be answered are as follows1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the contention of the assessee that the rediscounting interest paid on bills did not accrue or arise to the axis-bank by reason of diversion of such discount through an over riding title in favour of the Reserve bank of India and the IDBI and hence did not form part of the chargeable interest under the provisions of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 ?2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the transaction between the assesses and the IDBI in connection with rediscounting of bill sunder the scheme of refinancing by the IDBI and a similar scheme of the Reserve bank of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›