Karnataka Court November 1989 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mallikarjun and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ688; AIR1990Kant166; 1990(3)KarLJ154
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. In this reference under S. 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the question that arises for consideration is :'When a registered owner of a motor vehicle covered by an insurance policy transfers the vehicle to another, but does not secure certificate of transfer of the insurance policy covering the vehicle to the transferee of the vehicle, whether the insurance company is liable to answer the liability arising out of an accident met with by the vehicle after transfer of ownership of the vehicle but during the period for which the insurance policy had been issued ?'2. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the order of reference and therefore it is not necessary for me to reiterate the same. A Division Bench of this Court in United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chennamma (1981) 1 Kant LJ 245 : (AIR 1982 Kant 1) held that in the case of transfer of a motor vehicle unless a notice in the prescribed form was given to the insurance ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. United India Insurance Company, Bangalore Vs. Imman Aminasab Nada ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ757; AIR1990Kant156; [1990]67CompCas287(Kar); ILR1990KAR16
ORDER1. Under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act of 1961, a Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench.'Whether an award directing payment of compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, be made against the insurer without an enquiry and a finding that the risk giving rise to the claim is covered by the policy of insurance?'2. Facts of the case leading to the reference are as follows:-- On the 21st November 1986, a large number of persons were travelling in a truck bearing Registration No. MYJ 4535. They were going to a village in Maharashtra to earn their livelihood. When the truck came near the village Sattigere on Yadwad-Yargatti road at about 3.30 a.m. it turned turtle on the off side of the road, as a result of the accident a large number of persons died and also injured. The persons claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased persons filed as many as 24 claim petitions under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Meturit A.G. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)82CTR(Kar)345; [1990]184ITR257(KAR); [1990]184ITR257(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. In these reference under section 256(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the question of law referred for our opinion is as follows : 'Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction claimed under section 57(iii) of the act of the sum of Rs. 2,38,430 for the assessment year 1972-73 and Rs. 2,06,395 for the assessment year 1973-74 by virtue of section 58(1)(a)(ii) of the Act ?' 2. The circumstance in which these reference arose are as follows : The assessee, a non-resident company, having its registered office in Switzerland, entered into a collaboration agreement with Widia (India Limited, Bangalore, the assessee having borrowed money in Switzerland, from the Swiss Bank Corporation of Switzerland, purchase some machinery and sent it to India to its collaborator for installation of the same in its factory premises, in settlemen...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Mohan and ors. Vs. Additional Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR642; [1990]184ITR190(KAR); [1990]184ITR190(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ203
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Against the orders made in the writ petitions (See [1987] 168 ITR 381 and [1987] 168 ITR 384), these writ appeals are filled by the writ petitioner. The respective petitioner challenge the levy of surcharge levied on the amount of agricultural income-tax pursuant to the amendment effected to the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, by the Karnataka Ordinance No. 13 of 1980. Two contention were raised by the petitioners, viz., (1) that the Ordinance having lapsed on March 11, 1981, could not be invoked and no tax be levied thereunder; (2) the commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax had issued a circular on September 13, 1985, circular No. 2 of 1985-86, wherein he had clearly stated that in case where assessment were pending, the surcharge shall not be levied under the lapsed Ordinance. 2. The learned single judge, however, did not agree with the contentions. On the first question, the view expressed by the learned single judge may be stated in the words BBHH us...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Mallikarjun and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC547; [1990]67CompCas453(Kar); ILR1990KAR1
Rajendra Babu, J.1. In this reference, under section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the question that arises for consideration is: 'When a registered owner of a motor vehicle, covered by an insurance policy, transfers the vehicle to another, but does not secure certificate of transfer of the insurance policy covering the vehicle to the transfer of the vehicle, whether the insurance company is liable to answer the liability arising out of the vehicle but during the period for which the insurance policy had been issued ?' 2. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the order of reference and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to reiterate the same. A Division Bench of this court in United India five and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chennamma [1981] 1 Kar LJ 245 held that in the case of transfer of a motor vehicle, unless a notice in the prescribed form was given to the insurance company concerned under section 103a of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Shavi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR270; 1990(1)KarLJ78
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. A simple case unfortunately took a turn to unnecessary argument. The appellant before us was originally in the Secretariat as Superintending Engineer, later on promoted as Chief Engineer, Public Works Department. By Notification dated 8th of August, 1988 his services were placed at the disposal of the Department of Ecology and Environment for appointing as Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. By the same Notification, he was appointed with immediate effect and until further orders under Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 as Chairman of Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore. As a sequel to this, an order was passed on 12-12-1988 which in unequivocal terms stated that the period of deputation will end by the 30th of November, 1989. Therefore, a notice was given on 4-11-1989. On 24-8-1989, the appellant wrote to the Secretary to the Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bangalore, r...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Diwakar Shetty Vs. Vijaya Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR449]; ILR1990KAR205; 1990(1)KarLJ159; (1991)ILLJ242Kant
Mohan, C.J. 1. Never in a case our conscience has been so much troubled as in the present. The reason why we are obliged to make this prefatory remark will be obvious as we go on with the judgment.2. First, to the facts of the case. The appellant was issued a Memorandum of Charge by the respondent - Vijaya Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) on 17th of October, 1977 alleging certain discrepancies against him in that, he had fraudulently withdrawn sums from the accounts of the clients of the Bank. In that charge memorandum, the instances of such irregularities amounting to serious misconduct was levelled against him. He was called upon to submit his explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the Memorandum. The appellant put forth his explanation on 31st of October, 1977. He contended 'I once again regret for some of the irregularities made by me which I have accepted unreserved and I request you to excuse me'. After submitting his explanation on 15th November 1977...
Tag this Judgment!Ayaz Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR687; 1989(1)KarLJ454
ORDERRamachandriah, J.1. Matador Van bearing registration No. CAM 182 of which the petitioner is the registered owner has been confiscated to the State Government under Section 71A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') by the Authorised Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bhadravathi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authorised Officer') by his order dated 12-9-1985 in Case No. FOC/CON/CR-12/84-85 on the ground that it was used for the commission of a forest offence in the early hours of 26-1-1985 by transporting in it for the purpose of smuggling 81 sandalwood billets from the forest area called Lingadahalli Amrith Mahal Kaval Farm, Tarikere. The said order of the Authorised Officer has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga, by dismissing Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 1985 filed by the petitioner under Section 710 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Banhatti Co-operative Spinning Mill Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Electricity Boa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3518
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Bill dated 21-1-1989 bearing No. BNHT 2 issued by the second respondent produced as Annexure-J. It has also sought for issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amount of Rs. 91,02,646-40p. from the petitioner as demanded under the aforesaid Bill Annexure-J.2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,1959. It is a Co-operative Spinning Mill situated at Banahatti, Jamkhandi Taluk, Bijapur District.3. Having regard to the contentions urged on both sides, the following points arise for consideration:(i) Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to the demand made by the K.E.B. under the Bill dated 21-1-1989 produced as Annexure-J?(ii) If the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable, whether Article 14 or Article 15 of the Limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mallikarjun and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: I(1991)ACC414
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. In this reference under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the question that arises for consideration is:When a registered owner of a motor vehicle covered by an insurance policy transfers the vehicle to another, but does not secure certificate of transfer of the insurance policy covering the vehicle to the transferee of the vehicle, whether the insurance company is liable to answer the liability arising out of an accident met with by the vehicle after transfer of ownership of the vehicle but during the period for which the insurance policy had been issued?2. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the order of reference and therefore it is not necessary for me to reiterate the same. A Division Bench of this court in United India Fire & Gent. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Chennamma 1982 ACJ (Supp) S3 (Karnataka), he'd that in he case of transfer of a motor vehicle unless a notice in the prescribed form was piven to the insurance company concerned under ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »