Karnataka Court January 2004 Judgments
Kenchathayamma and anr. Vs. Nil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ488
H. Billappa, J.1. The appellants herein being aggrieved by the order dated 12--9-2002 passed by the Principal District Judge at Chitradurga in P and S.C. No. 1 of 2001 have preferred this appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The testatrix Gowramma was working as an Attender (Ayah) in the Government Hospital at Guddada Eangavalli Village. Her husband Narasimhappa died on 15-5-1984, her daughter Laxmi died on 24-10-1996 and her son Thippeswamy died on 4-10-1996. The appellants herein are the children of Gowramma's sister Lakshmamma. After the death of her husband and children, Gowramma was staying with the appellants herein and they were looking after her. Gowramma executed the registered Will dated 14-7-1999 bequeathing her properties in favour of the appellants herein and died on 16--7-1999 while in service.3. The appellants filed petition in P and S.C. No. 1 of 2001 for grant of probate of the registered Will executed by Gowramma.4. Though citation was issued nobody has e...
Tag this Judgment!L. Mohan Vs. V. Mohan Naidu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)20; 2004CriLJ3177
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the common judgment dated 24th January, 2002 passed by the 13th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in Criminal Appeal No. 16/1999. Wherefore, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of this revision petitioner and allowed the criminal revision petition No. 52/1999 filed by the respondent-complainant confirming the order of sentence passed by the trial Court, in imposing a fine of Rs. 40,000/-, but the compensation awarded to the complainant-respondent is enhanced to the extent of the sum of Rs. 35,000/- and the same was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Wherefore, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the Criminal Appeal No. 16/1999, the Revision petitioner accused has come up with this revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. mainly on the ground that both the trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge have not properly appreciated and analysed the evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganjam Nagappa and Son Trust Vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemption)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Kar)311; [2004]269ITR59(KAR); [2004]269ITR59(Karn)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner, Ganjarn Nagappa & Son, is challenging the order passed by R-1, Director of Income-tax (Exemption), dt. 29th May, 2002, Annex.-'F'.2. The petitioner is a charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the IT Act bythe CIT, Karnataka, The CIT by an order dt. 26th Nov., 1999 renewed therecognition of trust under Section 80G of IT Act, 1961, upto 31st March, 2001, The-trust applied for renewal of recognition under Section 80G(5) to the Director ofIncome-tax (Exemption) and the Director of Income-tax has rejected the renewalsought for by the petitioner. The same is challenged in this petition.3. Respondents have entered appearance. Sri Javali, learned counsel, invites my attention to the material facts to contend that the CIT has committed an error in not noticing the facts and the law in the case on hand. He says that the object of the trust was not in any way diluted by the petitioner warranting 'no renewal' on the facts of this case. He relies on...
Tag this Judgment!S. Jaganathan and anr. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: [2004]266ITR305(KAR); [2004]266ITR305(Karn)
R. Gukurajan, J.1. The first petitioner is the legal representative of the late Sri A. S. Sengoda Gounder. Sri A. S. Sengoda Gounder died on October 16, 1997. He was the managing director of M/s. Sri Sampurna Laxmi Spinning Mills Ltd., at Erode. He was an assessee in Bangalore. He submitted income-tax returns year after year and was regular in the matter of payment. In the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1995-96, he received certain foreign exchange from certain persons who are non-resident Indians. He did not submit any information about the foreign exchange in his returns. A survey was conducted in the office and residential premises in the year 1996. According to the petitioner, nothing transpired from out of the survey. He, while filing returns, indicated about the receipt of foreign exchange. Exemption was claimed in respect of NRI gifts. A search was carried out on February 20, 1997, at the office-cum-residential premises. Certain affidavits were seized in additio...
Tag this Judgment!Basavaraja Vs. Nagappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ430
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is a person who is claiming title to a land that had been granted originally under the provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Code ('the Code' for short). An extent of two acres of land had been granted on 21-1-1956 in favour of one Nagappa, a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community. At the time of granting the land, a condition had been imposed that the grantee should not alienate the land for a period of fifteen years from the date of grant as per condition No. 8 mentioned in the Grant Certificate which had been issued in Form 2, copy of which is produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition. Such a land had been sold on 3-6-1970 by the grantee in favour of the father of the petitioner by name S.M. Neelakantappa.2. Subsequent to the enactment of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short), the prescribed authority namely, the Assistant Commissioner in-charg...
Tag this Judgment!B. Nagendrappa and ors. Vs. Rudranaika
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR952; 2004(2)KarLJ391
ORDERM.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.1. All these cases involve common questions of law and facts. Common arguments have been advanced by both sides. Hence, common order.2. All these petitions arise out of the order dated 17-4-2003 passed in C.C. No. 131 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Challakere, taking cognizance of a case against the accused for various offences punishable under Sections 167, 417, 420, 464, 465, 468, 470, 504, 506 and 463 read with 34 of the IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 3(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the legality and propriety of the said order.3. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners-accused and Sri A. Nagarajappa, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent-complainant.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Leelavathamma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC382; 2004ACJ1761; AIR2004Kant215; ILR2004KAR1172; 2004(2)KarLJ545
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby Original Application No. 10 of 1998 under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, for payment of compensation has been dismissed.2. The appellant who happens to be the mother of late Sri Jagadish filed an application under Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, before the Tribunal for payment of compensation on account of the death of her son in an untoward incident that occurred while the deceased was travelling on passenger train No. 284/A between Bhadravathi to Bangalore. The applicant's case in the claim petition was that the deceased had purchased a ticket at Bhadravathi station and boarded the train at 11.15 p.m. for Bangalore. Since the railway compartment was heavily crowded, he fell off due to a jerk somewhere on the way resulting in his death. The respondent-Union of India contested the claim on several grounds. It was contended that the deceased was travelling on the footboard ...
Tag this Judgment!Naganna Vs. Shivanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant209; ILR2004KAR1074; 2004(2)KarLJ591
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 32 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Mandya arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 96 of 2000 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Maddur.2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendant not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing Sy. No. 265 measuring 31/2 guntas in Kadukothanahalli of Maddur Taluk. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff and defendant are brothers. In the year 1981 there was a partition amongst the brothers and a written memorandum of partition was recorded on 12-9-1982 styled as Palupatti. Six months thereafter there was redistribution of properties in partition under Ex. P. 2 according to which the plaintiff was allotted the suit property and claims to be in possession. The suit is filed seeking decla...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mallikarjunappa Vs. the State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Reven ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2119; 2004(5)KarLJ504
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. I..A III/03 is allowed and the delay in filing I.A. IV/03 is condoned. For the reasons stated I.A IV/03 is allowed and the order dated 16-4-2003 dismissing the petition against respondents 5, 6 and 9 is recalled.2. As per the Memo filed, Respondents 5 and 6 are permitted to be deleted at the risk of the petitioner. Consequently I.A.VIII/03 filed to treat respondents 7, 8 and 10 as legal representatives of deceased respondents 5 and 6 is rejected as unnecessary in view of deletion of respondents 5 and 6.3. For the reasons stated in the applications, I.As V, VI & VII are allowed. Delay is condoned, abatement is set aside and the legal representatives of deceased 9th respondent are permitted to bring on record.4. Counsel for the petitioner shall furnish the amended cause title within two weeks.5. On the joint application filed by respondents 3 and 4, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in their favour by order at Annexure-H dated 11-6-1979 in respect of 4...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Munirathanam, Since Deceased by Lrs. Vs. P. Sundaram, Since Decea ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant383; ILR2004KAR2328
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in RA No. 15/88 on the file of Civil Judge, K.G.F. arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 391/76 on the file of Munsiff, K.G.F.2. The appellants are the legal representatives of the plaintiff who had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale against the respondents herein. The first respondent is the first defendant in the suit. The second respondent is the second defendant in the suit. The suit property is a house property. Under Ex.D.2 the plaintiff sold the suit property for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- in favour of the first defendant on 7.6.1971. On 16.7.1971 under Ex.P.1 the first defendant agreed to reconvey the property on repayment of Rs. 4950/- within a period of 5 years and an advance of Rs. 50/- was paid to the first defendant. The possession was allowed to be with the plaintiff. Again on 25.9.1971 the first defendant advanced a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the plaintiff, a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »