Karnataka Court February 2004 Judgments
R. Babu Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka, by Public Prosecutor
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3214; ILR2004KAR1736; 2004(4)KarLJ51
ORDERKabbin, J. 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 1105/95 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC-II Court, Hassan, has challenged certain orders of the Trial Court issuing NEW and proclamation and attachment of property.2. The prosecution papers show that at about 6.45 p.m. on 21.08.1992, the Revenue authorities seized a lorry bearing No. KA-04/2222 suspecting that granite stones were being transported in that lorry illegally; and directed the driver (accused No. 1) not to remove the lorry from the spot until further orders. It is alleged that despite such direction, the said lorry was taken away by the driver without permission. Subsequently, he was apprehended and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against him and two others including the present petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC read with Rule 25(1) and (2) of K.M.M.C. Rules, 1969. In the charge sheet, the petitioner herein and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sundra Bai and ors. Vs. Smt. Sonubai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant336; ILR2004KAR1558; 2004(5)KarLJ619
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J1. This Writ Petition by the judgment debtors is directed against the order dated 19.1.2004 passed by the Executing Court rejecting IA-I filed by them under Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC for stay of further proceedings in Ex.Case No. 62/2003 on the ground of pendency of a suit in O.S. No. 314/2003 in the very same Court.The aforesaid execution case was filed to execute the decree passed in O.S. No. 780 of 1990.2. I have heard Mr. Ram Bhat, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. Mr. Ram Bhat, in support of his submission that the impugned order is erroneous has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in SHAUKAT HUSSAIN v. BHUNESHWARI DEVI and also a judgment of this Court in PUJARI SUBBAIAH v. LAKKAPPANAVARA.3. To examine the correctness of the impugned order, it is relevant to notice the scope and ambit of Order 21 Rule 29 of CPC which reads as follows:'Stay of execution pending suit between decree holder and judgment debtor, Where a s...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Sathyanarayana Setty Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Kar)223; [2004]269ITR375(KAR); [2004]269ITR375(Karn)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In all these writ petitions the writ petitioners are assessees under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). The grievance of the petitioners is that though they had sought for certain relief from the operation of the provisions of Sections 234A and 234B of the Act, it has been denied to them.2. Under Section 234A of the Act in respect of delayed filing of return, certain interest is levied and likewise, under the provisions of Section 234B of the Act, in respect of delayed payment of advance tax, the assesses is liable for payment of interest on the shortfall of the advance tax and for the delayed period. It is the case of the petitioners that they had sought for waiver of such levy under the provisions of Sections 234A and 234B of the Act by filing applications before the Chief CIT, Karnataka Area, the respondent herein and the request has been turned down even without as much being an order passed by the respondent nor the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!B.L. Srinivasa Gowda (Huf) and anr. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Agri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2608; [2004]270ITR332(KAR); [2004]270ITR332(Karn)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.2. Statement of objections has also been filed on behalf of the respondents.3. In these petitions a common question having been raised on behalf of the petitioners, these petition are disposed of by this common order.4. Petitioners are assesses under the provision of the Karnataka Agriculture Income Tax Act, 1957.5. Petitioner in W.P No. 41114/03 filed his returns of agricultural income for the assessment year 1996-1997 on 18-03-1998. This return, the petitioner was required to file by 31-07-1996. On such return, the Assessing officer completed the assessment as per his order dated 16-03-1999 and the Assessing Officer on noticing that there was a delay in filing the return of income, proposed levy of interest under Section 18(3-A) of the Act. After affording an opportunity to the assessee, by his order dated 31-1-2002 levied a sum of Rs. 81,764/-as interest ...
Tag this Judgment!Muniswamappa (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Muniswamy Alias Gangappa (Deceased ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ47
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased applicant before the Land Tribunal. They are aggrieved by the rejection of the tenancy claim in respect of Sy. Nos. 101/1, 101/2 and 56/3 of Rajenahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk and seeking to quash the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B passed by the Land Tribunal.2. Mr. G.D. Aswathanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the statement of the first petitioner and his brother found at pages 54 and 55 of the records of the Land Tribunal are not recorded in terms of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (in short called as 'Rules'), by the Chairman; that the finding of the Tribunal in Annexure-A is contrary to documentary evidence as name of petitioners' father is entered in the cultivator's column which has got presumptive value under the provision of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964. He further submits that the application of 5t...
Tag this Judgment!Siddanagouda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ73
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing no confidence motion notice dated 5-2-2004 bearing No. Chunavane: CR-13/03-04:7120 on the file of respondent 2.2. The respondents 1 and 2 are represented by Sri H.B. Narayan, learned Government Pleader.3. Heard arguments.4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner may be stated as under.--The petitioner was elected as a Member of the Grama Panchayat on 29-2-2000. He was elected as Adhyaksha of respondent 3-Grama Panchayat on 24-12-2000. It is alleged that rival members of the Grama Panchayat made a joint complaint to the respondent 2 on 27-1-2004 for moving no confidence motion against the petitioner. The impugned notice dated 5-2-2004 was served on the petitioner on 7-2-2004. The petitioner has contended that the impugned notice is liable to be quashed on the following grounds.--(a) that the representation or requisition submitted to the respondent 2 is not in accordance with Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat ...
Tag this Judgment!The Intelligence Officer and ors. Vs. Arshad Saleem Khan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4496; ILR2004KAR3855
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The Crl.As 1388/01,1389/01 and 1502/01 arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered in Spl.Case No. 10/97. The accused No. 1 is convicted for an offence under Section 22, the accused 2, 4 to 7 are convicted for an offence under Section 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The accused 3 and 8 have been acquitted. The State has filed the appeal in Crl.A.481/2002 against the acquittal. The accused No. 1 is sentenced to R.I. for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for a period of two years. The accused No. 2, 4 to 7 sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for a period of one year.2. The intelligence Officer of D.R.I. Mumbai, P.W.10 receives a credible information about the manufacture of Methaqualone powder in a building in Basava Colony of Belgaum and manufacture of Mandrax tablets in a new patan building situate in Kakti village of Belgaum. P.W.1 aft...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Basanagouda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2004
Reported in: I(2005)ACC840; 2004ACJ1652; 2005(1)KarLJ46
S.R. Nayak, J.1. Both the civil revision petitions are preferred by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the common judgment and order dated 5.2.2003 passed in Review Petition Nos. 55 and 54 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division and M.A.C.T., Raichur (for short, 'the M.A.C.T.'). Hence both civil revision petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Civil Revision Petition No. 1217 of 2003 is directed against the judgment in Review Petition No. 55 of 2002 whereas Civil Revision Petition No. 1022 of 2003 is directed against the judgment in Review Petition No. 54 of 2002. Both the civil revision petitions are filed before this court under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Review Petition Nos. 54 and 55 of 2002 were preferred by the insurance company before the M.A.C.T. under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking review of the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 639 of...
Tag this Judgment!Rishabchand Bhansali Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: (2004)188CTR(Kar)185; [2004]267ITR577(KAR); [2004]267ITR577(Karn)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, dt 29th Sept., 2003, in IT(SS)A No. 54/Bang/2002 relating to the block period 1990-91 to 1999-2000.2. The AO passed a block assessment order dt. 25th June, 2001, under Section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, ('Act' for short), in pursuance of a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act on 13th July, 1999. The said assessment order was passed after obtaining the previous approval from the Jt. CIT (Range 4), Bangalore, as required under Section 158BG of the Act. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the CIT(A)-II, Bangalore, in ITA No. 436/CIT(A)-II/2001-02. The appeal was allowed in part by an order dt. 7th Feb., 2002, granting certain reliefs. The assessee filed a further appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by an order dt. 29th Sept., 2003, allowed the said appeal in part granting some more reliefs.3. The appellant is aggrieved by the non-grant of other relief...
Tag this Judgment!Anneppa and ors. Vs. Smt. Bandevva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1939; 2004(5)KarLJ576
ORDER 14 RULE 5 -- Power of Courts under -- To amend and strike out the issues -- HELD -- If the issues framed by the Trial Court are contrary to pleadings on record, the appellate Court can direct the Trial Court to recast the issues based on the pleadings.Allowing the appeals remanding the same with a direction to consider the appeals on merits, the Court Held:If the Court was of the opinion that the documents produced by the plaintiffs/appellants were not in the Court language, Court could have called upon the parties to produce the translated copy. But only on the ground that Court is not in a position to understand the contents of these documents, has rejected the application filed by the appellants under Order-41 Rule-27 of CPC. An application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was also filed by the Appellants before the Appellate Court. The Court without considering the application filed by the appellants under Order-14 Rule-5 of CPC on merits has rejected the same on technical grounds, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »