Karnataka Court April 1981 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Julekhabi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas172(Kar); ILR1981KAR832
Sabhahit, J.1. This is appeal by the insurance company is directed against the order dated February 7, 1981, passed by the Vth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, dismissing an I.A. as well as the main petition to set aside the exparte decree under O. 9, r. 13 of the CPC on his file, M.V.C. 281 of 1976, which was admitted and judgment and award passed in the same by the Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, on June 22, 1979. Thereafter, the insurance company instituted Misc. No. 922 of 1980 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, to set aside the judgment and award, as the insurance company was ex parte in the proceeding. The learned City Civil Judge, in the course of his order, has held that the cause shown by insurance company to condone the delay is not sufficient and in that view he has dismissed the application after rejecting the application for condonation of delay. It is against that order that the present appeal is instituted. 2. It may at once be pointed out that the insu...
Tag this Judgment!Estate of Late H.H. Rajkuerba, Dowager Maharani Saheb of Gondal Vs. Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1981
Reported in: (1982)29CTR(Kar)346; [1982]135ITR393(KAR); [1982]135ITR393(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J. 1. I agree that the questions No. 2(a), (b) and (c) referred in relation to the first three years and the question No. 2(a) to (d) in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 should be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 2. My learned brother has indicated in his judgment the difference of opinion in relation to question No. 1. I wish to elaborate my reasons in that behalf. 3. Though the question referred is in general terms, its import should be gathered from the statement of the case and the actual contentions raised and considered. So dealt, it is clear that the only contention raised was that assessments should be made on the basis that the petitioners were trustees and the administration of the estate had been completed and so must be in accordance with s. 160(iv). The question of interpretation of s. 168 or the scope of it was never raised and was never debated before the Tribunal or other authorities. The question referred, therefore, is on...
Tag this Judgment!B. Ganganna Vs. Returning Officer, M.A. Venkataswamy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant156; ILR1981KAR1543; 1981(2)KarLJ290
ORDER1. Misc. Petition No. 3 of 1980 is an application, filed by the petitioner -in Election Petition No. 74 of 1978, under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting this Court to restore to file Election Petition No. 74 of 1978 dismissed for default (vide order-sheet dated 23-11980).2. The facts are like these: Challenging the election of the 2nd respondent (in E. P. No. 74/78) from the Legislative Assembly Constituency No. 63, Kallamballa, to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly in the general elections held in the month of Feb., 1978, the petitioner had filed E. P. No. 74/78. The contesting respondents had filed their written statements. In the light of the rival pleadings the Court had framed issues. After framing the issues the petition had been set down for evidence of the petitioner. On 23-11980 neither the petitioner nor his witnesses were present and, therefore, the petition was dismissed for default. The note made in the order-sheet maintained in Election Petition No. 74...
Tag this Judgment!Munibyrappa Vs. K. Ramaraju and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas551(Kar); ILR1981KAR815; 1981(2)KarLJ253
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal is by the owner of the vehicle and is directed against the judgment and award dated August 8, 1978, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, In M.C. (MVC) No. 8 of 1975, on its file, awarding Rs. 23,600 as compensation from respondents Nos. 1 to 3 with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of payment along with costs before the Tribunal. 2. The only grievance made out by the appellant is that under s. 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the insurance company. Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, inter alia, states that in making the award, the claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. 3. The Tribunal has no doubt made a joint decree against the owner, insurer and driver. The Tribunal ought to have furth...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Patel and ors. Vs. N.H. Doddabasappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1981
Reported in: [1982]52CompCas340(Kar); 1981(2)KarLJ39
Sabhahit, J.1. M.F.A. No. 194 of 1979 is by the driver of the vehicle and is directed against the judgment and award dated October 23, 1978, passed by the District Judge & Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raichur, in Miscellaneous (MVC) Case No. 4 of 1977, on his file, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,000 as compensation from the driver. 2. A girl of 6 years died as the result of an accident that happened on December 1, 1976, at 4-30 p.m. on Raichur Sindhnoor Main Road. The Tribunal has held that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. MYR 5059 by its driver. Having held so, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 6,000 for the death of a girl aged six years. But, while giving the award, the Tribunal fixed the liability only against the driver of the vehicle and the same is challenged in this appeal before us. 3. It is no doubt true that in the case of a vehicle, which is the subject-matter of an hire purchase agreement, the person, who ...
Tag this Judgment!Paramanand L. Bajaj Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-ii
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Kar)290; ILR1981KAR1219; [1982]135ITR673(KAR); [1982]135ITR673(Karn)
Rama Jois, J.1. An important question of Hindu law on the topic of reunion' of the divided coparceners of an erstwhile Hindu undivided family (hereinafter referred to as 'HUF'), namely, whether the failure on the part of some of the reuniting members to bring back the properties which they had got at the time of the partition, and which were still in their possession on the date of reunion, renders the reunion invalid, i.e., no reunion in the eye of law, arises for consideration in these references in which the income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench, has referred for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question : 'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no reunion ?' 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The assessment years to which these references relate are 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessee is an HUF consisting o...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Vs. Ningappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant159; ILR1982KAR439
ORDER1. In view of the further arguments addressed by both the sides before signing the order dated 2-4-1981 is recalled and the following order is passed.The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The suit was posted for evidence on 25-11-1975 and on that day, the Court was otherwise engaged; therefore, the suit came to be adjourned by the Court to 27th January 1976 but not at the instance of any of the parties. On 27-1-1976, the plaintiff and the defendants and their counsel were present but the plaintiff did not adduce evidence nor did he enter the witness box. The Court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution with costs. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under 0. IX, R. 9 of the Civil P. C. for restoration of the suit. The trial court has held that the order in question dismissing the suit for non-prosecution falls within the scope of R. 3 of 0. 17 of the Code, therefore, it is appealable and accordingly it has rejected the application as n...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kallaiah Vs. Ningegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant93; ILR1981KAR819; 1981(2)KarLJ11
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-8-1978 of the Civil Judge, Hassan, in R. A. No. 3 of 1977, affirming the judgment and decree dated 10-11-1976 of the Munsiff, Channarayapatna, in 0. S. No. 206 of 1971.2. Prior, to 29-6-1960 the plaintiff was the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 70/2A of Kaggere village, Nuggehally Hobli, Channarapatua Taluk, measuring 2 acres 15 gnats out of which an extent of 0-01 gnats was a 'kharab' land. On 29-6-1960 the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant purporting to convey the said land to the latter for a consideration of Rs. 200/(Exhibit P-1). On the same day, the defendant also executed an agreement to reconvey the said land (Exhibit P-2) to the plaintiff within 18 months from that day. On 10-7-1963, the defendant reconveyed an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas including the kharab out of the aforesaid land to one Sri K. Visweswaraiah, a son of the plaintiff (Exhibit P-3).3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Patel Vs. N.H. Doddabasappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant161; [1983]54CompCas184a(Kar); ILR1981KAR817
Sabahit, J.1. M. F. A. No. 194 of 1979 is by the driver of the vehicle and is directed against the judgment and award dated 23-10-1978 passed by the District Judge and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raichur, in Miscellaneous (MVC) Case No. 4 of 1977, on his file, awarding a sum of Its. 6,000/- as compensation for the driver*Against judgment and award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Dist. Judge, Raichur, D/- 23-10-1978.2. A girl of 6 years died as the result of the accident that happened on 1-12-1976, at 4-30 P. M. on Raichur-Sindhnoor Main Road. The Tribunal has held that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. MYR 5059 by its driver. Having held so, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 6,000/- for the death of a girl aged six years. But, while giving the award, the Tribunal fixed the liability only against the driver of the vehicle and the same is challenged in this appeal before us.3. It is no doubt true that in the ca...
Tag this Judgment!V. Govindarajan Vs. the Surveyor General of India, Dehradun
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant142
ORDER1. In this writ petition, in which a civil servant of the Central Government in the Survey Department is questioning the legality of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him the following question of law arises for consideration:Whether the order made by the Surveyor General of India (Head of the Department) authorising the Director, South Central Circle, Hyderabad, to exercise disciplinary powers exercisable by the Director, Southern Circle, Bangalore under whose jurisdiction the petitioner is working-(i) falls within Rule 15 of the Fundamental Rules which provides for transfer Of an officer from one post to another, which power has been delegated to the Head of the Department and, therefore, valid? Or (ii) falls within Rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules, which provides for combination of appointments which power, in relation to the category of posts concerned in this case, has not been delegated to the Head of the Department and, therefore, invalid?2. The facts of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »