Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant104
ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant No. 6 aggrieved of the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. and JMFC, Pandavapura (in short called as the 'trial Court') on I. A. No. V in FDP No. 5/ 1999 dated 10-7-2000 and for setting aside the same. 2. The brief facts are narrated in thisorder to appreciate the rival contentions urged by the parties to find out as to whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from error in law, which warrants interference by this Court in O. S. No. 425/ 1989 filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. On the basis of the respective claim and the counter claim of the parties, the trial Court determined the rights of the parties which existed as on the date and passed preliminary decree in terms of Section 2(2) r/w Order 20 Rule 18 Sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Against the said preliminary decree, the defendants filed R. A. No. 69/19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1995Kant98
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is to quash the order dated 19/21-3-1994 Annexure 'D' and order dated 7-5-1994 Annexure 'E' issued by the second respondent University rejecting the eligibility and Admission of 20 students to the I Year B.Sc., Nursing Course for the academic year 1993-94 in their College.2. The petitioner is an Educational Trustwhich is running number of educational Institutions. In order to start the B.Sc., Nursing Course, the petitioner made an application to the respondents for grant of affiliation to start the above Course from the academic year 1993-94. On the said application, the second respondent University made a recommendation to the State Government by a letter dated 1-4-1993 to grant permission to the petitioner Trust to start B.Sc., Nursing Course from the academic year 1993-94. On the basis of the above recommendation the first respondent Government has passed an order evidenced by Annexure 'A' dated 17-9-1993 according sanction to the petitioner to start a Col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2942; [1988]68STC3(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are all dealers registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 14 of 1987, published in the Karnataka Gazette of April 2, 1987, the definition of the 'year' in section 2(1)(x) of the Act underwent a change. According to the amended definition, 'year' means the year commencing on the first day of April. This amendment was brought into effect from the 1st day of April, 1987. 'year' as defined earlier, read as follows : ''year' means the financial year commencing on the first day of April; but for purposes of assessment a dealer may, at his option, declare that he will adopt the year for which the accounts of that dealer are ordinarily maintained in his books and where no such declaration is made, the year commencing on the first of April and ending on the 31st of March shall be reckoned as the assessment year : Provided that a regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant77; AIR1960Mys77
S.R. Das Gupta, C.J.1. The Petitioner before us was assessed under the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessing year 1948-49. On 27th November 1956 he was served with a notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. In the said notice it was stated that whereas the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that the income of the Petitioner assessable to income-tax for the year ending 31st March 1949 has escaped assessment, he is required to deliver within 35 days of the receipt of this notice a return in the attached form of his total income and world income assessable for the year ending 31st March 1949.The Petitioner appeared before the Income-tax Officer pursuant to the said notice and challenged the right of the Income-tax Officer to proceed under the said section. The main contention of the Petitioner before the authority concerned was that the notice was given beyond the period mentioned in Section 34 of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer did not accept that contention. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant148; 2003(5)KarLJ98
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. These two petitions involve a techno-legal questions resulting in the growth of technically speedy procedure. CRP 4636/2002 is filed by the defendants 1 and 2 challenging the order dated 28-11-2002 passed on IA No. 17.CRP 4637/2002 is filed by the same defendants challenging the order dated 28-11 -2002 passed in IA No. 5 in OS No. 154/98.2. Facts in brief are as under:Parties would be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. Appellants are defendants. Respondent is the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 154/98 on the file of the Principal District Judge. Mysore, complaining about the infringement of copy right in respect of film 'Independence Day'. Plaintiff also sought for an order restraining the release of the said film by the defendant. An IA was filed seeking for an order to restrain the defendants from re-releasing, screening of the film any where in India or in other countries. The said IA was rejected. It was challenged in MFA ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1995)129CTR(Kar)217; ILR1995KAR2366; [1995]215ITR758(KAR); [1995]215ITR758(Karn); 1995(39)KarLJ393
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners call in question the constitutional validity of sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, with effect from April 1, 1989. 2. Briefly stated, section 234A makes a provision for the payment of simple interest calculated at the rate of 24 per cent. per annum by an assessee, who commits default in furnishing a return of income under section 139(1) or section 139(4) or in response to a notice sent to him under section 142(1) of the Act. The amount at which such interest is payable and the period for which the same is payable is set out in the provision itself, reference whereto shall be made in detail a little later. 3. Section 234B of the Act, on the other hand, provides for payment of interest by an assessee, who even though liable to pay advance tax under section 208 of the Act, has either failed to pay such tax or the advance tax paid under secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant407; ILR2003KAR2559; 2004(2)KarLJ28
Raveendran, J. 1. The appellants were the plaintiffs and respondents were defendants in O.S.No. 176/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gadag. For convenience we will refer to the parties by their ranks in the suit or by their names.2. Virupaxgouda and Veerangouda (Defendants 1 and 2 in this suit) are brothers and are the sons of late Basangouda Patil and his wife Basawa. Plaintiffs- 1 to 4 are the children, and plaintiff No. 5 is the wife of Virupaxgouda, the first defendant. The third and fourth Defendants are respectively the son and wife of Veerangouda, the second defendant.3. Basangouda, filed a suit against his two sons (Virupaxgouda and Veerangouda) and his wife (Basawa) in O.S.No. 60/1994 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Division) Gadag for partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the joint family properties. He alleged that there was no partition till then. During the pendency of the suit, Basangouda died. Basangouda's second son Veerangou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR576
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged the notifications dated 30.5.1988 and 18.3.1989 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Petitioners claim to be the owners of certain lands which were proposed for acquisition under Section 4(1) of Act, in favour of the 4th respondent-Trinity House Building Co-operative Society, to provide sites to its members. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioners have filed their objections objecting the proposed acquisition on several grounds. The Land Acquisition Officer overruled all the objections and submitted the Report recommending for acquisition of the lands. On the basis of the said Report, the Government has issued a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. These notifications are called in question in these petitions.3. The brief facts of the case are:-That one Sri S. Rangar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001(4)KarLJ627
ORDER1. The defendant in a suit for recovery of money of Rs. 2,84,110/- has preferred this revision, questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Trial Court in LA. under Sections 94 and 151 of the CPC directing the defendants to furnish the security for the suit claim.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had failed to repay the money taken for the construction of the house at Whitefield. She has also borrowed Rs. 50,000/- on 16-9-1991 by executing on demand promissory note. When the cheques given by her were dishonoured on presentation, complaint in CC No. 16023 of 1990 was tiled before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Magistrate in that case ordered to take action against accused under Section 193 of the IPC read with Section 430 of the Cr. P.O. for tampering the Court records believed to have been committed by the accused to suit the defence. The defendant was originally working as a Gazetted Officer in Government of Karn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004(5)KarLJ610
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 30-2-2001 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in PCR No. 128 of 1997, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by this revision petitioner.2. Assailing the order of dismissal of the complaint the revision petitioner has come up, with this petition under Section 397 of the Cr, P.C. The allegations of the petitioner in his PCR are that the respondent 1-accused colluding with BDA officers and officials obtained a lease-cum-sale deed dated 27-9-1985 and the possession certificate dated 11-10-1985 and made use of the same in the Civil Court. Likewise, the respondent-accused is responsible for creation of lease-cum-sale deed dated 27-9-1985 and possession certificate dated 11-10-1985 in favour of Smt. B.K. Padmavathamma. On this ground the petitioner has sought for penal action against the respondent under Sections 466, 467, 468 and 469 of the IPC. After registering the same ...
Tag this Judgment!