Karnataka Court August 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prakash Road Lines Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3576
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant. It arises out of the Judgment and decree passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 1718/80 on 4-8-1986. The respondents who were plaintiffs, sued the defendant-the Road Transport Carrier, for damages for certain consignments rendered useless or rendered unsaleable and unmerchantable on account of exposure or breakage suffered in an accident while the goods were in transit.2. The undisputed facts are :- that Park Davis (India) Ltd., Bombay consigned certain goods to 2nd plaintiff Spencer & Co., at Bangalore, Madras, Calicut and Cochin. What was consigned appears to be mostly drugs. The consignment that was carried by a carrier belonging to the defendant met with an accident. The Driver was seriously injured and Cleaner of the lorry was killed on the spot and the consignments was spilled and spewed all over the road. On receipt of the news, the defendant sent another lorry, picked...
Prakash Road Lines Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC168
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant. It arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 1718/80 on 4-8-1986. The respondents who were plaintiffs, sued the defendant-the Road Transport Carrier, for damages for certain consignments rendered useless or rendered unsaleable and unmerchantable on account of exposure or breakage suffered in an accident while the goods were in transit.2. The undisputed facts are: that M/s. Park Davis (India) Ltd., Bombay consigned certain goods to 2nd plaintiff Spencer & Co., at Bangalore, Madras, Calicut and Cochin. What was consigned appears to be mostly drugs. The consignment that was carried by a carrier belonging to the defendant met with an accident. The Driver was seriously injured and Cleaner of the lorry was killed on the spot and the consignments was spilled and spewed all over the road. On receipt of the news, the defendant sent another lorry, pic...
Raghbir Singh Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: [1987]67STC410(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Sri Dattu, HCGP, was directed to take notice re. rule. He has entered appearance. After hearing Sri Channabasappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader, the matter is disposed of finally. 2. The short question that arises is about the jurisdiction of the second respondent to assess the petitioner for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. This assumes importance since the petitioner had, after the close of the year, i.e., after 31st March, 1986, shifted his place of business from No. 22, H. Ramaiah Lane, Seegebeli, Bangalore-53 to No. 10, I Floor, Gurumurthy Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore-8. The intimation about this shifting was given to the Commercial Tax Officer, XII Circle, Bangalore, on 22nd September, 1986 as per annexure-B. 3. After shifting to the new place of business, the petitioner also wrote to the second respondent that he would prefer to be assessed by the assessing officer having jurisdiction over the new place of b...
State of U.P. Vs. Sanjay Kumar.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: 2012(8)SCC537; 2012AIRSCW5157; JT2012(8)175; 2012(8)SCALE3
1. Delay condoned.2. This petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and Order dated 8.2.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal (Capital Case) No. 7760 of 2009, by which the High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to the respondent by the Sessions Court, in life imprisonment upon recording its conclusion that it was not among the `rarest of rare cases’, in which death penalty could be awarded.3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are as follows:A. The respondent was engaged in the work of whitewash in the house of one Shyam Ji Sharma, resident of Tulsi Vihar Colony, Varanasi and his very close relative Divya Rani was staying with him, as she was appearing for her Intermediate examination. The complainant Shyam Ji Sharma alongwith his wife Rajni Sharma had gone to the market on 24.2.2007 to purchase goods while Divya Rani (deceased) was supervising the said work. When the complainant came back with his wi...
Kadarkari. Vs. OnkarammA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)KarLJ159
CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J.(1) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1977 passed by the Civil Judge at Davanagere in o. S. No. 52/1975 on his file. The appeal is by the 2nd defendant. In the course of this judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.(2) THE 2nd defendant was the transferee of a portion of the suit schedule property which he was occupying as a tenant. The plaintiff's suit was for specific performance of an statement to call the suit schedule property, including the portions in the occupation of the 2nd defendant, by the 1st defendant who was the owner of the whole of the suit schedule property. Because the 2nd defendant purchased two rooms in his occupation, he was impleaded.(3) THE defendants contested the suit. it was held, it would suffice for us to say, the 2nd defendant was not a bona fide purchaser without notice. On the other hand, it was held on evidence that the 2nd defendant had knowled...
Basettappa Bangareppa Bangarshettar Vs. Irawwa Kom. Totappa Pattanshet ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant174; 1987(2)KarLJ394
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dt. 27th Sep. 1977, passed in O.S.No. 29/75 on the file of the Civil Judge, Gadag. The appellant before us is the 1st defendant. In the course of this Judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.2. The suit was one for partition brought by the plaintiff, who is respondent 1 here. The suit plea was that she was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties belonging to her deceased father and that the 1st defendant was her step brother and defendants 2 and 3 were her step sisters, being the son and daughters of her deceased father through his second wife. She sought partition by metes and bounds and separate possession.3. The 1st defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement. While admitting the relationship of the defendants and the plaintiff, the 1st defendant resisted the claim on the ground that after the death of his father on the advice o...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Vs. Manager, State Bank of Mysore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant1; [1988]64CompCas167(Kar); ILR1987KAR2919; 1987(3)KarLJ458
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter has come before us by way of reference made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in Karnataka under Section 54(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for adjudication as to whether the instrument in question is an 'instrument of trust' as claimed by the author of the trust, viz., the State Bank of Mysore, a subsidiary of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank') or it is a 'deed of mortgage' as claimed by the Revenue (State) and if not either, what instrument it is on a correct interpretation of its contents and chargeable under which entry in the Schedule to the Act?2. We may at the outset state, if the instrument is but a trust deed, it is chargeable to stamp duty under the Act at Rs. 90 under Article 54A in the Schedule to the Act and at the rate specified in Article 34 of the Schedule to the Act on the market value of the properties secured (which is Rs. 125 lakhs) if it is a deed...
Chandra Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Companie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas117(Kar); ILR1988KAR149
ORDERNavadgi, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) by the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 against the judgment of convictions and sentences passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in C.C.No. 79/ 82.2 Chandra Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913, having its Registered Office at 5th Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18, represented by its Director Sri M. Krishnamoorthy (Petitioner No. 1), Sri M. Krishnamoorthy (Petitioner No. 2) and Sri M. Nagaraj (Petitioner No. 3) - the Directors of the said Company - were A-1, A-2 and A-4 respectively in the Trial Court. The other person arraigned in the Trial Court as Accused No. 3 was Sri M. Madhusudhan, another Director of the said Company.3. Chandra Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Limited, Sarvashree M. Krishnamoorthy, M. Madhusudh...
D.P. Sharma Vs. State Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3255; 1988(3)KarLJ534
ORDERS - INVALIDITY & NON-COMPLIANCE -- Invalidating effect not uniform ; of wide range subject to collateral-challenge or adjudication by Court -- Meantime decision/order effective.The invalidating effect of non-compliance with the provisions, either substantive or procedural, of a statute on the decisions of administrative bodies and Tribunals is not uniform. The invalidating effect, so far as the decision is concerned, may range widely according as to the nature and intensity of the vitiating-factors. At one end of the scale there may, conceivably, be cases where vitiating factors may be so overwhelming that the decision may well nigh be no decision at all in the eye of law and may safely be ignored and admit of a collateral-challenge. But between one end to the other, there are various shades and degrees of invalidity ; the effect of the invalidating factor or factors in most of them requiring to be adjudicated upon by the Court. In the meanwhile the decision is effective.(C) MOTOR...
The United Oxygen Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant78; 1987(3)KarLJ254
ORDER1. The petitioner is the United Oxygen Company (Private) Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It has a factory where oxygen is produced. Therefore, it is electricity based industry. It obtained installation to its factory in one of the suburbs of Bangalore. It is a4ged by the petitioner that it was paying the bills regularly as and when the demands were served on it according to the reading taken by the officials of the Ist respondent Karnataka Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). However, the petitioner was surprised that it had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,09,459-75 being the short claim detailed in the letter dt. 25th July 1977 issued by the Asstt. Engineer, Electrical, ESD-3, Bangalore-1. A true copy of that letter is produced at Annexure -C to the petition. Thereafter, there appears to have been meetings between the representatives of the Company and those of the Board and much correspondence. Finally, a demand was-made at-Rs. 99...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »