Karnataka Court July 1990 Judgments
B.S. Somasekaraiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1691
Mohan, C.J. 1. The short facts leading to the appeal are as follows:The appellant was working as Assistant Public Prosecutor. Consequent to his appointment as such on 23-9-1969, he was posted to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Manvi during the year 1975. On 11-12-1975 a trap case was laid. When the appellant was sitting in the Bar Association of Manvi, one person by name Narasappa came at 12-20 p.m. and paid money for the proper conduct of his father's case. At the time when the money was received by the appellant, the Anti-Corruption Officers caught the appellant and seized the currency notes. Those currency notes were subjected to phenolphthalein test, Panchanamas were drawn and the statement of the appellant was taken. As a result, it was concluded that the said Narasappa had approached the appellant and the appellant had taken Narasappa to the Bar Association of the Manvi Court where the appellant demanded Rs. 50/- for the conduct of the case effectively. The of...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Rangegowda Vs. Akbar Salt
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2936
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal was required to be registered as Original Side Appeal on 20-3-1989 after notice to the other side. As far back as December 16, 1988 this Court was made aware by the office noting that Original Side Appeal was not maintainable under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Therefore, on December 16, 1988 the Bench which heard the matter then directed notice regarding maintainability of the Original Side Appeal. On January 5, 1989 I.A.1 was directed to be considered along with the main appeal, which was directed to be posted for preliminary hearing. On February 17, 1989 the learned High Court Government Advocate was directed to take notice for the State and in regard to other respondents fresh notices were directed. Then on 20-3-1989 the appeal had been admitted, but stay of operation of the impugned order was refused. Thereafter, the matter has now come up for hearing. When the matter came up for hearing before the Divi...
Tag this Judgment!Savita Vs. H.S. Achuta Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3174; 1990(3)KarLJ580
B.N. Krishnan, J1. The appellants were the plaintiffs before Munsiff, Hassan in Original Suit No. 193 of 1973. They sought for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,575/- from defendants 1 to 3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the two lower Courts negativing the relief to him against defendants 2 and 3, they have preferred this appeal.2. The case put forward by them is, that the properties described in the plaint 'A' schedule formerly belonged to the 1st defendant who sold plots 1 and 2 to the 3rd defendant and plots 3 and 4 to him. He later purchased plots 1 and 2 from 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant was due certain monies to Manjarabad Taluk Co-operative Land Development Bank, on the security of these properties sold by him and certain other properties. The 1st defendant sold his other properties for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the 2nd defendant and out of the sale consideration, he left a sum of Rs. 9,000/- with the 2nd defendant himself to discharge the loan due by him to the afor...
Tag this Judgment!Parasappa Rudrappa Pujari Vs. Nagappa Balappa Ambi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ867; 1990(3)KarLJ206
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The appellant is the petitioner before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, in M.V.C. No. 353 of 1980. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 56,000/- on account of the death of his son Rudrappa Parasappa Pujari, who was employed by the owner of the truck bearing registration mark MEZ 4768 as a hamali (coolie). On one of the days when he had loaded the truck with mud, before he could get into the vehicle properly the vehicle was driven by the driver without notice as a result of which Rudrappa Parasappa Pujari fell down and the vehicle ran over him. As a result of the injuries caused by the rash and negligent act of the driver he died. The petitioner claimed Rs. 15,000/-towards mental agony and shock, Rs. 40,000/-for loss of dependency and Rs. 1,000/- for funeral expenses. Respondent No. 1, the driver of the truck, in his statement of objections resisted the claim. He pleaded that on account of the rash and negligent act of Rudrappa Parasappa the accid...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Tax Officer, X Additional Circle, Bangalore Vs. Mac Charles ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]82STC162(Kar)
S. Mohan, C.J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is as to the scope of section 8(3)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. That section reads as follows : 'The goods referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) - (b) are goods of the class or classes specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the goods as being intended for resale by him or subject to any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, for use by him in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power;' 2. The respondent herein applied for registration for certain goods. That was rejected and ultimately, the matter was taken up to this Court. After remit, the Commercial Tax Officer, X Additional Circle, Bangalore, passed the following order : 'This case has been remanded by the Honourable High Court of Karnataka, vide its order dated October 10, 1984, in W...
Tag this Judgment!P. Seenappa Setty and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]83STC273(Kar)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. The question of law which arises for consideration in this revision petition resented under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is whether or not safety fuse falls within entry 81-B of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and consequently liable to tax at the rate of 6 per cent single point. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these : The petitioner is an assessee registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). The assessment period is the year ending 30th June, 1984. The turnover of the petitioner relating to safety fuse during the assessment year was Rs. 97,470.90. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of tax on the said turnover on the ground that he was a second and subsequent dealer and as safety fuse comes under entry 81-B of the Second Schedule to the Act only 6 per cent tax at single point was leviable and therefore this turnover should be exempted from payment of tax. The assessing authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Enterprises Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2435
K.A. Swami, J.1. By the order dated 9-7-1990, this Appeal was ordered to be transferred to the City Civil Court, Bangalore City in the light of the provisions contained in Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989 which came into force on 17th April 1989 read with Section 12(1) of the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act, 1979. Before that order came to be typed and signed by us, we noticed that the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Bangalore City Civil Court Act had not been taken note of. Therefore, we directed the appeal to be posted 'for being spoken to' on 10-7-1990. It was also pointed out to the learned Counsel appearing for both sides that as the effect of Section 18(1) of the Bangalore City Civil Court Act, 1979 and the words 'law for the time being in force in the City of Bangalore' occurring in Section 12(1) of the Act were not taken into account, the order required to be recalled and the Appeal required to be heard on merits. On this,...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Baliga Vs. Vijaya Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4361; 1991(4)KarLJ721
Murlidher Rao, J. 1. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. His suit for declaration that the order of termination of service dated 3-2-1972, was illegal and for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- is dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Decree.2. Plaintiff was a Bank Manager in Birur branch of respondent. He had been appointed on 3-6-1967. One Sri B.P. Uttappa S.I. of Police applied for loan of Rs. 3,900/-. The plaintiff, after scrutiny recommended his case for sanction of loan. The Administrative Office by its letter dated 26-10-1970 intimated the plaintiff that loan has not been sanctioned and application was rejected. Subsequently the loanee approached the Head Office of the Bank and got the loan sanctioned.3. Plaintiff took it as personal insult. So he addressed a letter on 26-11-1970, to the Chairman, Administrative Office, Bangalore, calling upon the latter to inform the grounds regarding their satisfaction to accept the proposal, having rejected it earlier. To quote his own words,...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Mahajan Vs. Myveneers
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2910; 1991(4)KarLJ604
Murlidher Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of Judgment and decree in O.S.93/1975, on the file of Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore. Plaintiff's suit based on promissory note, is decreed against defendant-2 and dismissed against defendant-1. Defendant-2 has filed R.F.A.143/1979 and plaintiff has filed R.F.A.193/1979, Defendant-2 is the son of defendant-1.2. Second defendant was one of the partners in M/s. Myveneers (hereinafter called as 'Firm'). M.S. Lakshman Gupta, who represents the firm, was the Managing Partner. The managing partner and the other partners suspected that second defendant had misappropriated certain amounts and has overdrawn the amounts from the firm. On 2-12-1974, second defendant retired from the firm, but, his father (defendant-1) states that he ceased to be the partner from 1-10-1974. On 20-11-1974, the firm, by its managing partner, filed a complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate, VI Court, Bangalore, alleging commission of offences of falsification of...
Tag this Judgment!Goudappa Appaya Patil Vs. Shivari Bhimappa Pattar and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: AIR1992Kant71
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. This appeal by plaintiff 1 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 1-4-1980 passed in R.A. No. 99/76 by the Principal Civil Judge, Chikodi confirming the judgment and decree dated 25-8-1976 passed in O.S. No. 24/73 by the Principal-Munsiff, Hukeri.2. Respondent 1 is the defendant and respondent 2 is plaintiff 2. The appeal is referred to a Division Bench on the ground that it involves a question as to whether the doctrine of lis pendens could be extended to a proceeding before a High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution.3. The appellant and respondent 2 have filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that they are the owners of the land bearing Block No. 68 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas, phot kharab 16 guntas, situated at Haiti Alur village in Hukeri Taluk and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and the persons claiming through him from disturbing the plaintiffs of their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »