Karnataka Court April 1972 Judgments
Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pappu Poojary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas6(Kar); (1972)2MysLJ74
Chandrashekhar, J.1. Has the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act jurisdiction make against the insurer of a motor vehicle, an award of compensation for death of, or injury to, a person in an automobile accident in the course of his employment as a driver of that vehicle This is the principal question that arises for determination in this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Certain material facts are not in dispute. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are sisters of Sanjeeva Poojary who was employed by respondent No. 5 herein as driver of motor car. While driving that car Sanjeeva Poojary met with accident on August 11, 1966, resulting in his death. As dependents of Sanjeeva Poojary, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 made an application under section 22 of the Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), claiming ...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore Vs. Piadade Fernandes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant62; AIR1973Mys62
1. These are an appeal and a cross-appeal, preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, West Coast Road, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as L. A. O.) and the claimant respectively. They are directed against an award made in O. P. No. 115 of 1963, on 28-11-1966. by the principal Civil Judge, Man-galore, they are therefore, disposed of by a common judgment.2. By a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the L. A. Act) published on 9-2-1961, 54 cents of dry land in S. no. 43/6-A- 1-B of Kanakandy village was acquired for the purpose of construction of an approach road to Nethravathi bridge near Mangalore. There were also some buildings on the land whose total extent, in the ownership of the claimant, was 1 acre 20 cents and formed a part of the southern portion of the aforesaid number. It is not in dispute that the said land was sloping and really formed part of a small hill, and the village of Kanakandy. in which the said land is situ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapatsa Narayansa Habib Vs. Tuljansa Narayansa Habib
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-14-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant309; AIR1972Mys309; (1972)2MysLJ126
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The building bearing CTS No. 197. Ward No. 2, Hubli is in dispute between the parties to this appeal. It is described as Item No. 1 in the plaint presented by the appellant. It is admittedly in possession of defendant No. 1 who is the respondent before me.2. The suit is for possession of the said property and also for permanent injunction against defendant No. 1 restraining him from making any structural alterations or demolition thereon, alternatively claiming 1/3 share in all the suit properties on the ground that the parties to the suit are members of a Hindu undivided family. So far as the disputed property is concerned, the plaintiff's primary case is that it was allotted to his share by the family partition of the year 1944 and that defendant No. (1) has been ever since in the permissive occupation and of late, he has unauthorisedly demolished a portion with a view to make a lot of structural alterations therein. With these allegations, in the court be...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarshan and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR85(KAR); [1973]89ITR85(Karn)
Govinda Bhat, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', made at the instance of the assessee. The question of law referred is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assesses firm is entitled to registration ?' 2. The assesses firm made an application for registration under section 185 of the Act in the assessment year 1967-68. The Income-tax Officer rejected that application and treated the assessee as an 'association of persons' for the assessment year 1967-68. On appeal by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Belgaum Range, affirmed the said order. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, further affirmed that order in I.T.A. No. 91 (Bang) of 1969-70.3. The deed of partnership dated April 8, 1965, provided as per clause (2) to carry on the business of excise contractors and as per clause (3) to carry on such business as contemplated under the deed of partne...
Tag this Judgment!Devaki Vs. Deeda S. Putran
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ294
ORDERD. Noronha, J.1. The petitioner filed M.C. No. 148 of 1970 before the Additional First Class Magistrate Bangalore against her father the respondent, under Section 488(3) Criminal Procedure Code, claiming arrears of maintenance at Rs. 20/- per month in execution of the order in M.C. No. 27 of 1964 of that Court, dated 23.6.1965. Her claim was for the period 24.10.1969 to 23.11.1970. The respondent filed a written statement resisting the application. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application. In this Revision the petitioner assails that order.2. The only material we have is the petition dated 8.12.1970 and the written statement dated 17.3.1971. The petitioner did not seek to file a reply. Neither side desired to adduce evidence.3. The contentions of Sri V.G. Vasantha Kumar, learned Advocate of the petitioner, that the court below ought to have taken the initiative for evidence being adduced, and that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for a reply being filed...
Tag this Judgment!Bando Banaji Mutalik Vs. Bhaskar Balaji Kulkarni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant311; AIR1972Mys311; (1972)1MysLJ649
ORDER1. This petition under Section 115, Civil P. C. has been brought up before us by way of a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It is by a tenant and is directed against an order made by the Principal Munsiff, Gadag in Misc. Case 1 of 1970.2. The few relevant facts are as follows:-- The respondent herein, who is the owner of R. S. No, 332/2 in Huilgol Village, sued the petitioner herein, by an application filed before the Land Tribunal, constituted under the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a declaration that the petitioner was not a tenant. The said petition has been filed on 24-12-1966 under Section 112 of the Act. Since the application of the respondent had been filed beyond the time specified under the proviso to Section 4 of the Act, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1963, for condonation of delay involved in its presentation, was also filed. According to the proviso to Section 4 of the Act such an ap...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Parvathamma Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR138(KAR); [1974]93ITR138(Karn)
1. This writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated January 13, 1969, made by the Income-tax Officer, Assessment No. 3, Bangalore (first respondent), and the order dated April 18, 1970, made by the third respondent - Commissioner of Income-tax. 2. There was a firm styled as 'K. Shivappa and Sons'. That consisted of six partners. The petitioner was one of the partners of the said firm. The firm was dissolved on March 31, 1968, the intimation of which was given to the Income-tax officer. After the dissolution of the firm, the Income-tax Officer had issued a notice under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on July 8, 1968, to one K. L. Mohan, who was one of the partners of the firm. 3. The main contention of Sri B. V. Katageri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that after the dissolution of the firm, notices ought to have been served on all the partners of the partners, the assessment made is not valid and the same cannot be enforced against the petitioner....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›