Karnataka Court June 1981 Judgments
Balappa Mallappa Dambal Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Kant251; 1981(2)KarLJ174
ORDER1. In this writ petition the short question that falls for determination is whether Ammonium SuIphate, Ammonium Nitrate, Urea, Ammonium Chloride, Sodium Nitrate, Calcium Ammonium Nitrate, Super Phosphate etc., imported and sold by the petitioner within the municipal limits of the Town Municipal Council, Chloride are liable to levy of octroi either under Item 12 of Class III or under Item 3 of Class IX of the Second Schedule - to the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) (Since filing of the petition, Octroi has come to be abolished).2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition stated briefly are as follows : The petitioner is ' a dealer in Chemical fertilizers. He is doing so for the last 50 years in the Town of Chikodi in Belgaum District. The customers are all agriculturists. By an order dated 7-7-1976 the State of Karnataka, 1st respondent herein accorded sanction to the 2nd respondent-Chinked Town Municipal Council to levy octroi on good...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Company Vs. Venkatamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1981
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas356(Kar); ILR1981KAR952
Sabhahit, J.1. The appellant is the insurance company. The question that arises for our consideration is, whether the insurance company can take up contentions which are not covered under s. 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act when the Supreme Court of India has settled the point holding that the defence available to an insurance company is confirmed to the subject mentioned in s. 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (vide British India General Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Captain Itbar Singh : [1960]1SCR168 . 2. In this case, however, Sri Chinnappa, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the owner of the vehicle remained absent before the Tribunal and the insurance company defended the case. Simply because the owner remained absent the insurance company does not get ipso facto the right to defend and does not become a party to the proceeding. Section 110C of the Motor Vehicles Act reads : '11OC. (1) In holding any inquiry under section 110B, the Claims Tribunal may, subject t...
Tag this Judgment!Neelkantappa Vs. the P.L.D. Bank, Gulbarga
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Kant89; ILR1981KAR1477
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the confirmation of the sale of his land comprised in Survey No. 107 of Kannur Village in Gulbarga taluk in favour of P. L. D. Bank, Gulbarga respondent-2, for the realisation of the decretal amount of Rs. 7,625-50 due to the Bank.2. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition, are as under:The petitioner borrowed a sum of Rupees 5,000/- in the year 1966 from the 1st respondent Bank. He paid certain amounts. Since the amount was not fully recovered the 1st respondent initiated proceedings for the recovery of the aforesaid amount in the year 1973-74, before the arbitrator. The arbitrator passed an award for Rs. 7,625/on 18-3-1974. The petitioner took other legal actions available under the law. The award of the arbitrator passed in Dispute No. 132/73-74 came up for execution. The 3rd respondent, who was the Sales Officer, conducted the auction. As there were no bidders the 1st respondent bid in the auct...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›