Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999CriLJ3819
1. This is an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State. The State being aggrieved by the judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in S.C. 3/1988 in acquitting the respondents-accused of the offences under Section 143,148,302 read with 149 or 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 324 read with 149 or 324 read with 34 and 326 read with 149 or 326 read with 34 IPC has preferred this appeal against acquittal.2. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 9.30 p.m. on 21-8-1987 and armed with deadly weapons assaulted Chikkavenkata and committed his murder. The accused caused injuries to P.Ws.1 to 3, 6, 7 and 8 in the scuffle. The prosecution case further is that the accused attempted to put up a shed in the land in Survey No. 111/1 of Yaladahalli village hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed land') and when the deceased party came and objected to the accused putting up the shed it is alleged that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR1019; 1987(1)KarLJ320
Nesargi, J.1. Appellants are 13 in number. Two charge sheets were filed, involving all the accused and one Bhimanagouda Desai of Hadnoor village, Taluk Shorapur, by the Kembhavi Police, alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The deceased is one Siddangouda of Yevoor village situated 5-6 kms. away from Hadnoor. Bhimanagouda Desai was shown as absconding.2. The cases were committed by two Committal orders to the Court of Sessions, Gulbarga. The Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga clubbed the two cases and held common trial. He re-arraigned the accused in the two cases as A-1 to A.13. The case against Bhimanagouda Desai was bifurcated as he was absconding.3. The prosecution case is that there were two factions, one headed by Channareddy of Hadnoor and the other by Bhimanagouda Desai of Hadanoor. All the accused belonged to the faction of Bhimanagouda Desai of Hadnoor while the deceased, his son PW-1; Shankargowda. PW-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2001)170CTR(P& H)590
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.Is the assessee entitled to exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) This is the short question that arises in these four Income Tax References.2. The assessee is a co-operative society. It was incorporated for the manufacture of sugar from sugarcane. It purchases sugarcane from its members as well as the other growers. The assessee claimed deduction in respect of the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96 under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessing officer declined the claim. It was noted that the assessee was buying sugarcane, manufacturing sugar and selling it in the market. Sugar is not an agricultural produce. It did not belong to the members. Accordingly, it was held that the assessee was not marketing agricultural produce of its members.The assessee appealed. Its claim in respect of the assessment year 1992-93 was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak, vide order dated 25-7-1995. It was held that marketing included taking over...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1 By these appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 4th November, 2008 delivered by the learned District Judge-2, Sangli thereby allowing the part of these appeals by allowing the claim nos.2 and 3 and upholding claim nos.1A to 1E awarded by the learned arbitrator. 2 The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding these two appeals are as under: a) On 4.3.1999, the respondents-contractor entered into an agreement with the appellant for construction of major bridge across river Krishna on Miraj-Kolhapur (Maharashtra State High Way-3) at K.M. 181/400 near village Ankali which approaches with prior financing collecting toll rates on build, operate and transfer (for short 'BOT') basis. The appellant issued work order on 4.3.1999 in favour of the respondents. The work awarded to the respondents was to be completed within a period of two years from the date of issuance of work or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. This Regular Second Appeal essentially arises out of the challenge made as against the permission granted by the statutory authorities concerned for the establishment of a vault type cemetery in the appellant St.Mary's Orthodox Church, Vettipuram, Pathanamthitta district. The contesting respondents herein had filed Original Suit, O.S.No.57/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta, praying to set aside the impugned orders issued by the statutory authorities concerned in the matter of permission for construction of a vault type cemetery by the St.Mary's Orthodox Church authorities concerned (respondents 5 and 6 in the O.S.) and for consequential injunction. The trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta, on 29.9.2000 in O.S.No.57/1999, the church authorities had filed Appeal Suit, before the District Court concerned. The lower appellate court, as per the impugned jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2295
Prem Shanker Asopa, J.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have initially prayed for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the. petitioners and further restraining them from taking any action to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question situated at S-l, Poultry Farm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur measuring 7000 Sq. Metres. The petitioners have also prayed for payment of Rs. 50,000/- as damages for breaking down the entry gate in question and causing mental harassment.2. On disclosure of the fact that vide order dated 4.3.2006 the lease deed dated 17.10.2005 which was duly registered on 18.10.2005, as corrected on 19.1.2006, has been cancelled and the amount of Rs. 1,93,08,001/- was also refunded vide Cheque No. 770731 and the possession was also taken and further when the petitioners refused to receive the same then the order was affixed at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : [2004]88ITD118(Mum)
ORDERPer Jaidev, A.M. This appeal of the assessee is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 30-3-2000, passed under section 263. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are argumentative but it is noticed that grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are in fact the substantive grounds of appeal and the remaining grounds are the arguments in support of the aforesaid grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are reproduced as under :'1. The Commissioner erred in passing the order under section 263 on the ground that the original assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.2. The Commissioner erred in treating liquidated damages of Rs. 21,00,000 received by the assessee from M/s. Mahendra Builders Pvt. Ltd. as revenue receipt taxable under the head 'Capital gains'.'2. The facts are that assessee alongwith his father Mr. Nanalal Kapurchand Shah jointly (whose name was recorded for the sake of convenience) agreed to purchase share certificat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001CriLJ1433
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State and carefully perused the material placed on record by the prosecution with their assistance.2. This appeal by the appellant Venkatachalaiah, who is the sole accused in the case, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court, whereby the appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for having caused the death of one Gowramma on 28-1-1995 at about 11.30 a.m. by the side of a road situated behind the house of the appellant at Manchanagondanahalli village within the limits of Kyatasandra Police Station. The appellant is alleged to have assaulted the deceased or committed assault on her with a chopper M.O.5.3. The incident in question took place on 28-1-1995 at about 11.30 a.m. in the morning by the side of a road situated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD720; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)42; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)147
1. Criminal Appeal No.739 of 1999 is filed by the sole accused in Sessions Case No.695 of 1997, who was tried by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. On evidence the learned Judge has convicted him and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. Whereas Criminal Revision Case No. 11 of 2000 is filed by the defacto complainant for enhancement of sentence. Both the cases arise out of Sessions Case No.695 of 1997, they are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused was that on 6-2-1997 at about 9-00 p.m. the accused-appellant herein committed the murder of one Kolhapalli Madhava Rao at Chaitanyapuri Colony, Kazipet. 3. The prosecution case can briefly be narrated as follows: That the accused was working as a Medical Officer in Regional Engineering College Campus Dispensary at Warangal. The decea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No.294/1994 by which the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the Suit of the respondent/plaintiff and instead decreed the Suit of the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the appellant/ defendant from the shop premises, the defendant had filed the present Appeal in this Court. FACTS: 2. The respondent/plaintiffSau. Rupabai filed the Suit for possession and for recovery of damages from the appellant/defendant vide Special Civil Suit No.122/1991 for shop in Municipal House No.130/2, Ward No.43 on Nazul Plot No. 4/3; Sheet No. 68B within the local limits of Amravati Municipal Corporation, as owner of the shop premises, having become the owner under a sale deed from the former owner Matasaran executed on 29th December, 1988. Matasaran was the original landlord/ owner and the defendantLahu...
Tag this Judgment!