Karnataka Court July 1990 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.
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Mahadev Jatta Naik and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: 1992ACJ100; [1991]70CompCas599(Kar); [1991(61)FLR572]; 1990(3)KarLJ275
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. There is force in the memo filed on behalf of the respondents. However, Mr. Suryanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, : [1957]1SCR488 , wherein the Supreme Court by a majority decision laid down certain tests in regard to the continuity and subsistence of right of appeal having regard to the nature of the proceedings instituted as a suit. All appeals after judgment and decree being continuation of the proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the law that is applicable on the date of the suit is the law that will govern all subsequent appeals. But, however, there may be an exception and that exception is to be found in clause (v) of para 23 of the judgment cited above. The exception is that such right of appeal may be interfered with or curtailed by a subsequent enactment expressly or by implication. Undoubtedly, the proceedings were before the A...
S. Nagiah Vs. India Aluminium Co. Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2744; (1991)ILLJ554Kant
Mohan, C.J. 1. All these cases can be dealt with under a common judgment since they arise out of the same proceedings relating to the appellant-workman. 2. We propose to refer to the parties as arrayed in Writ Appeal No. 3322/1986. 3. The appellant-S. Nagaiah joined the services of the 1st respondent (Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd.) on 13th January 1971 as a workman. He was promoted as an Operator in 1971 itself. A lock-out was declared on 29th April, 1980 by the Management which ultimately came to be lifted on 16th July, 1980. Concerning this lock-out an industrial dispute was raised and I.D.8/1980 was pending on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore (later transferred to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli and numbered as I.D. 17/1983). About 30 workers including the appellant were issued the charge memos. As far as the appellant is concerned he was issued two charge memoranda dated 14th April, 1980 and 29th April, 1980. Both these memoranda were signed by one Mr. S. S. Saihgal, Gener...
Goudappa Appayya Patil Vs. Shivari Bhimappa Pattar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3288
K.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. 24/1973 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 Articles 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 Hatti 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. Th...
Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. C. Sriniva ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2451; 1991(4)KarLJ587
ORDER 26 RULE 9 - Revision under Section 115 lies against order appointing or refusing appointment of commission - Interference depends on facts & circumstances of each case, purpose commission sought for, reasons given by subordinate Court & whether discretion exercised judicially on relevant considerations. Order 26 of the C.P. Code itself proves for issuing commissions to examine witnesses and for local investigations for scientific investigation performance of ministerial act and sale of moveable property and to examine accounts, to make partition etc. Thus Order 26 of the C.P. Code gives a right to a party to the suit to have a commission issued for aforesaid purposes...If the Court below rejects the request for appointment of a commission in a case where the requirements for appointment of a commission are satisfied, undoubtedly such an order would affect the right of a party to the suit to adduce evidence...There may be cases in which appointment of commission itself may not be ...
H.B. Veerabhadra Goud Vs. Returning Officer and Tahsildar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2850; 1990(3)KarLJ217
Rama Jois, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, in which the subject matter is the election to the office of Pradhan and Upa Pradhan of Alur Mandal Panchayat, Kudligi Taluk, Bellary District, the following questions of law arises for consideration:1. When any election is stayed by an Interim Order granted by a Court, in any case, and the case is finally dismissed, whether the election should proceed from the stage at which it was interrupted or a fresh Calendar of Events should be issued? And2. Whether the election to the offices of Pradhan and Upa Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat of Alur, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition, should be held confining to the candidates who had filed nomination pursuant to the notice of election issued on 10-4-1987 before the issue of Stay Order by this Court or the election should be held by giving further time to the Members of the Panchayat to file nominations seeking election to those offices? 2. The brief facts and circumstances of the case, wh...
Karnataka State Rd. Trans. Corpn. Vs. Jayalakshmi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC310
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') questioning the correctness and legality of the award made by the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madikeri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in M.V.C. No. 132 of 1987 on its file.2. Undisputedly, M.K. Muthappa, respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal, was the driver of the motor vehicle belonging to the Corporation bearing registration No. MEF 5672. He drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing the death of one D.N. Suresh. Therefore, his wife and children aged 24 years, 10 years, 8 years, 7 years and 5 years respectively preferred Claim petition before the Tribunal, inter alia, Claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 3, 00,000/-, as he was the only earning member of the family. They also pleaded that he was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month and therefore such a heavy Claim was made against the Corporation. However,...
Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Jayalakshmi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ988
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') questioning the correctness and legality of the award made by the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madikeri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in M.V.C. No. 132 of 1987 on its file.2. Undisputedly, M.K. Muthappa, respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal, was the driver of the motor vehicle belonging to the Corporation bearing registration No. MEF 5672. He drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing the death of one D.N. Suresh. Therefore, his wife and children aged 24 years, 10 years, 8 years, 7 years and 5 years respectively preferred claim petition before the Tribunal, inter alia, claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, as he was the only earning member of the family. They also pleaded that he was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month and therefore such a heavy claim was made against the Corporation. However, t...
Virupaxi Vs. Smt. Sarojini and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant128; 1992(4)KarLJ103
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This is the husband's appeal on his failure to get a decree of annulment of the marriage with respondent 1 (his wife) inter alia on-the ground that she committed adultery which was witnessed by the husband himself on 6-9-1972 and on the ground that the first respondent, his wife, had deserted him for over a period of seven years.2. In Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1980 in the Court of the Civil Judge at Athani, the petitioner pleaded that on his return from his shop to his house at a time he found respondents cohabiting sexually and seeing him they got up; he rebuked them. He rebuked and told her not to continue her adulterous life in furture. Thereafter the petitioner was shocked and he took meticulous care to refrain from having sexual intercourse with his wife. He further alleged that even thereafter the first respondent had her menstrual periods regularly up to 11-3-1973. However she gave birth to a male child on 18-12-1973. He therefore pleaded that t...
C. Mohamed Zafrulla Sheriff Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2475
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. These are cases coming before us by an order of reference made by a Division Bench of this Court in these Writ Petitions. Two points are referred to us:(1) Whether a permit granted covering a route prior to the promulgation of a draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, could be set aside in an appeal on the ground that after the grant, before or after the filing of the appeal, the draft scheme came into force under which the route became a notified route and no stage carriage permit could be granted?(2) Whether a stage carriage permit granted to a person in respect of which timings have not been assigned and/or the permit had not been issued, is liable to be set aside on the ground that subsequent to the grant, draft scheme prepared under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 had been published covering the route in question?2. The matter came before the Division Bench itself in view of the conflicting opinion rendered in two cases. In ...
A.M. Abdul Rahman Vs. V. Jayaram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2962
ORDERRamachandriah, J.1. This is a transfer petition filed under Section 24 C.P.C. by the first respondent in H.R.C.No. 10842/83 on the file of the 4th Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Judge') praying for withdrawal of the said case from the file of the trial Judge and transfer of the same to any other Court of Small Causes in Bangalore City for trial and disposal in the interest of justice and equity. The ground on which the petitioner has sought transfer of the said case is that the learned trial Judge is biased against him and he has got a reasonable apprehension that he may not get justice at the hands of the learned trial Judge if the said case were to be tried and disposed of by him as he is doing business in the shop from which his eviction is sought by deceased - first respondent V. Jayaram and his brother second respondent V. Shanmugam by investing all his money in his business and he is entirely depending upon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »