Karnataka Court January 2003 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.
State by Balehonnur Police Vs. Unni and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ36
1. This is an appeal against an acquittal preferred by the State.2. The State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court in S.C. No. 16 of 1992, dated 30-9-1997 in acquitting the accused respondents for offences punishable under Sections 144, 148, 302, 326 and 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC have preferred this appeal against the acquittal.3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:The accused are labourers residing at Kallukore Village in Koppa Taluk. Accused 5-Sri Krishna has got a provision shop at Kallukore. On 6-10-1991, one day prior to the occurrence P.W. 16 went to purchase some coffee powder and other provisions. When P.W. 16-Sri Shama was returning accused 5 asked P.W. 16 to pay the balance amount of Rs. 200/-. P.W. 16 replied that he owed only Rs. 60/- and on saying that P.W. 16 was walking back to his place. Accused 2, who was in the shop of accused 5 came behind and gave a blow with his hand on P.W. 16. This simple incident appe...
State Bank of India, by Its Manager Vs. Nagesh Hariyappa Nayak and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: III(2003)BC201; ILR2003KAR1435; 2003(4)KarLJ68
Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the plaintiff/bank which is aggrieved by the Trial Court declining to decree the suit claim as against the Guarantors also and in having decreed the suit as against the principal borrower only. 2. The principal borrower was the first defendant in the suit and the guarantors are defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. The suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,42,456-00 with current and future interest at the rate of 20.75 % per annum and had been decreed only against the first defendant/borrower for the entire suit claim with current and future interest at 17.5% p.a. The plaintiff/ bank has preferred this appeal questioning the decision of the Trial Court in so far as it relates to the dismissal of the suit as against the guarantors. 3. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are that the plaintiff/bank had entered into an agreement with the first defendant/ borrower to lend a sum of Rs. 1,0...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.V. Shantharam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Kar)300; [2003]261ITR435(KAR); [2003]261ITR435(Karn)
G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. This Departmental appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), against the order dated October 31, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'B', in I. T. (SS) A. No. 12/Bang of 1999. It pertains to a block assessment made against the assessee for the period 1989-90 to 1999-2000 made under Section 158BC of the Act. The substantial question of law which has fallen for our consideration is--'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal for cancelling the block assessment in question are perverse being contrary to the materials on record and have been arrived at on conjectures and surmises ?'Foundational facts :2. The assessee is an individual. At the material time he was the managing director of Mayura Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Swathi Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. He was also a partner in Hotel Mayura in Bellary and Shanthakumar Ganeshlal Enterprises, Banga...
Mrs. Ammayyamma Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4106; 2003(3)KarLJ462
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner assails the validity and legality of the impugned order dated 10-1-1962 passed in No. 29/59-60 on the file of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, and consequently, the order dated 17-11-2000 vide Annexure-F passed in Appeal No. 418 of 1999 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she purchased the suit schedule land in question on 22-6-1959. In view of the amendment to the Inams Abolition Act, Mysore and the Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954, she filed application for grant of land. The said application filed by the petitioner had come up before the second respondent on 10-1-1962. The second respondent after considering the material on record has rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that all the lands are vested in the Government with effect from 1-2-1959 whereas, the petitioner has purchased the lands in question on 22-6-195...
Shridhar and ors. Vs. Excise Inspector, Dharwad Range and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ578
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. W.P. Nos. 23550 to 23554, 25265 to 25272, 28992 to 29016 and 26975 to 26997 of 2001.Since the constitutional validity of amended Sections 15-A and 32 to the Karnataka Excise Act is challenged in all these writ petitions and since the same questions of law are involved, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. All the petitioners are hoteliers running non-vegetarian hotels and restaurants. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 28992 to 29016 are the hoteliers running non-vegetarian hotels and restaurants at Belgaum City. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 25265 to 25272 are running their restaurants at Gadag Town, so is petitioners in W.P. Nos. 23550 to 23554 at Dharwad and petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26975 to 26997 at Gadag Town.3. They all contend in their writ petitions that they have no licence to vend liquor at their restaurants though most of them have applied for grant of excise licences in this regard. Customers who visit their hotels purchas...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Kumudavalli and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC80; 2005ACJ1598; 2003(4)KarLJ177
M.F. Saldanha 1. This appeal which has been preferred by the then Bangalore Transport Division of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation assails the validity of the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-EC, Bangalore City in M.V.C. No. 2873 of 1993, dated 27th June, 1996. A most gory incident had taken place at about 6 a.m., on 18-9-1993 when the deceased A. Ramachandran who was a Senior Technician working with Hindustan Aeronautics Limited had travelled in BTS bus bearing No. CAF 701. He had alighted at the bus-stop and had proceeded to walk a little distance when the bus started moving and he came to be run over by the rear wheel of the bus as a result of which, he died instantaneously. His widow, the three children out of whom two were minors and the mother were the five claimants before the Tribunal. They had claimed an aggregate compensation of Rs. 4,75,000/- under different heads and the basic controversy in this appeal centers around the fact that this case...
State of Karnataka Vs. Unni and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2790
1. This is an appeal against, an acquittal preferred by the State.2. The State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in S.C. No. 16/1992 dated 30-9-1997 in acquitting the accused-respondents for offences punishable under Sections 144 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149, 326 r/w 149 and 324 r/w 149, IPC have preferred this appeal against the acquittal.3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as follows :The accused are labourers residing at Kallukore village in Koppa Taluk. Accused No. 5 Sri Krishna has got a provision shop at Kallukore. On. 6-10-1991, one day prior to the occurrence P.W. 16 went to purchase some Coffee Powder and other provisions. When P.W. 16 Sri Shauna was returning Accused-5 asked P.W. 16 to pay the balance amount of Rs. 200/-. P.W. 16 replied that he owned only Rs. 60/- and on saying that P.W. 16 was walking back to his place. Accused-2, who was in the shop of accused No. 5 came behind and gave a blow with his hand on P.W. 16. This si...
Susheelamma and ors. Vs. NooruddIn and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC482; 2004ACJ2087
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in the M.V.C. No. 986 of 1993, awarded aggregate compensation of Rs. 2,26,944 to the wife and minor children of deceased Muniraju, who was working as Driver-cum-Excise Guard in the Excise Department. At about 3 a.m. on the morning of 15.6.1993, he was driving car No. MEY 6000 from Kolar towards Bangalore and it has been established that due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry No. MYT 5310, a collision took place near Hosakote, resulting in the death of Muniraju. The Tribunal, for the purpose of computation had accepted the figure of Rs. 2,364 as the monthly salary of the deceased and there is no dispute about the fact that the computation seems to have been rightly done except for the fact that on re-examination, we find that the correct multiplier ought to have been 15 and not 12. We have accordingly done the requisite re-computation, but, we need to deal with the oth...
Mohammad Fayaz Ahmed alias Dadu Fayaz Ahmed Vs. the Commissioner for W ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC400; 2004ACJ2076; [2003(97)FLR599]; 2003(2)KarLJ166; (2003)IILLJ383Kant
S.B. Majage, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-owner of M/s. Dadu Fayaz Silk Filature and Winding, Ramanagaram, questioning the order dated 9-10-2002, by which his writ petition, challenging the constitutional validity of third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and also to declare that he has right to file an appeal before this Court without depositing the compensation amount awarded to respondents 3 and 4 has been rejected.2. It is vehemently argued for the appellant that on account of proviso in question, he is unable to avail his right to appeal due to financial problem and that a welfare legislation should not have made it mandatory to deposit compensation amount for filing an appeal by an aggrieved person against compensation awarded under Workmen's Compensation Act and as such, it violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and consequently ultra vires. Perused the records carefully.3. Before going into the merits, it is necessary to note the...
Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. Mahabala Hospitals Private L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2003
Reported in: II(2003)BC478; [2003]116CompCas39(Kar); 2003(2)KarLJ400
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The Karnataka State Financial Corporation (for short, 'KSFC'), being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th September, 1999 in W.P. No. 25038 of 1999 has come up with this writ appeal.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal briefly stated are as under.--The respondent herein is the writ petitioner. The Corporation had sanctioned three loans; a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs on 26-9-1990, a sum of Rs. 33.80 lakhs on 31-8-1991 and a sum of Rs. 6.20 lakhs on 26-2-1993, totally Rs. 90.00 lakhs to the writ petitioner for establishing hospitals. The land and building where the hospital is situated, is mortgaged to the Corporation by executing a mortgage deed. The writ petitioner committed defaults in repaying the loan amount in terms of the schedule of repayments. Under those circumstances, the Corporation took steps under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act'), for taking over the assets of the petitioner-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »