Karnataka Court August 1990 Judgments
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Reny Mammen and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: [1993]77CompCas266(Kar)
Rama Jois, J.1. In these appeals presented under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the Act' for short), against a common award on three claim petitions presented under section 110A of the Act, read with rule 343 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 ('the Rules' for short), the following important questions of law arise for consideration :2. In the case of a claim for compensation for death or injury caused by a motor accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of more than one motor vehicle by the drivers of those vehicles :(A) Whether or not the owners of all such vehicles are several tortfeasors in that each owner is a separate tortfeasor and consequently the liability of each of the owners of the vehicles is separate and distinct and whether or not there should be apportionment of the amount of compensation awarded in proportion to the negligence of each of the drivers as found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ? (B) Whether section 110B of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Shivarame Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1008; ILR1990KAR3544
ORDER1. (i) Whether pre-trial detention for years even in a murder case does not offend Art. 21 of the Constitution of India (COI) (ii) If so, can an under-trial prisoner in a murder case claim to be automatically released on bail in spite of the restrictions imposed on such prisoners under section 437, Cr.P.C. if there is no reasonable chance of the commencement of his trial in the near future even after his incarceration in jail for more than one year and 3 months (iii) Under what circumstances can an under-trial prisoner urge for his release on bail even in cases where he is accused of having committed heinous offence like murder which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life under section 302, IPC (iv) Whether under such circumstances, an under-trial prisoner can invoke to his aid the bail provision under section 437 or 439, Cr.P.C. or the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482, Cr.P.C. or the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the COI in order to come out of...
Tag this Judgment!West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Indira Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2516; 1991(2)KarLJ202
Questions for consideration: 1. Whether the decree for ejectment passed by the Court other than the one defined in the Act, in respect of the premises governed by the Act is sustainable in law? 2. Whether the decisions in C.K. Mohammed Kunhi v. State of Karnataka and Ors. [1989(1) KLJ 109] and Hameed & Hameed Enterprises v. Nicky's Parlour : ILR1989KAR835 have laid down the law correctly? Held: The striking down of Section 31 of the Act will have its effect on the pending proceedings. However, the decrees which had become final and which had been executed were not to be re-opened...It is clear that subsequent change in law has to be applied to the pending proceedings...It is well settled that when a trial Court decrees a suit and the decree is challenged by a competent appeal, the appeal is considered as a continuation of the suit. When the appellate decree affirms, modifies or reverses the decree of the lower Court on merits, the trial Court decree is said in law to merge in the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Byamma Vs. Ramdev
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3245; 1991(1)KarLJ221
B.P. Singh, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal. One Chowdappa had a son, by name Chikka Ramaiah. Chikka Ramaiah was married to the plaintiff Byyamma. Chowdappa's daughter by name Chickkavenkatamma had a son Ramdev who is the 2nd defendant. The first defendant, Smt. Akkayyamma is the widow of Chowdappa. 2. The plaintiff claimed partition of her share in the joint family properties described in the Schedule claiming that she had 1/3rd share, being the widow of a pre-deceased son. The defendants denied her claim and asserted that she had only a right to be maintained by 2nd defendant in view of the Will executed by late Chowdappa on 12-12-1949 bequeathing his interest in favour of 2nd defendant while casting an obligation upon him to maintain the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. 3. A few facts that are not in dispute may be noticed. Chowdappa and Muniyappa were brothers and they constituted a Joint Hindu Family. The husband of the plaintiff, Chickka Ramaiah son of Chowdappa died in...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Reny Mammen
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ403; ILR1990KAR3181
Rama Jois, J1. In these appeals presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 ('the Act' for short), against a common award on three claim petitions presented under Section 110-A of the Act read with Rule 343 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1963 ('the Rules' for short) the following important questions of law arise for consideration:In the case of a claim for compensation for death or injury caused by a motor accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of more than one motor vehicle by the drivers of those vehicles:(A) Whether or not the owners of all such vehicles are several tort feasors, in that each of the owner is a separate tort feasor and consequently the liability of each of the owners of the vehicles is separate and distinct? and whether or not there should be apportionment of the amount of compensation awarded in proportion to the negligence of each of the drivers as found by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal?(3) Whether Section 110-3 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!M. Devaraj Vs. Vijayalakshmi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4045
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. This is a tenant's Revision Petition. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial Court found that the ground under Clause (a) did not arise for consideration and this finding is not challenged before me. Regarding the claim under Clause (h) it was found that the premises was sought by the land lady to enable her husband-P.W.1 to start a business in electrical appliances. At the time of eviction petition he was about to retire from I.T.I, and having regard to his experience the business in electrical appliances could be carried on by him after his retirement.2. The tenant-petitioner is having his hair cutting saloon. According to him this premises was not suitable for the business for which) P.W.1 is claiming because it measures only 8' x 6'. It was further pointed out that landlady has other shop premises which has been let ...
Tag this Judgment!Mallamma Vs. B.S. Venkataram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2761; 1991(4)KarLJ526
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 14-2-1990 passed by the 5th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No. 1908/1983.2. The appellant is the second defendant in the suit. Sri B.S. Venkataram who was the sole plaintiff in the suit died during the pendency of the suit, therefore, respondents 1 (i) to 1 (vii) were brought on record in the trial Court as plaintiffs 1 to 7. Respondent-2 is the first defendant in the suit. The first defendant and second defendant are the husband and wife.3. At the stage of admission, the records of the Appeal are received. Therefore, the Appeal is admitted and it is heard for final disposal on the request of both the sides.4. Sri B.S. Venkataram filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that the defendant 'Kambaiah' has no right to/over the schedule premises and has no right to occupy the same and also a decree for possession by ejectment of Kambaiah requiring him to physically move out and assure full vaca...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Vs. Alhaz Khaja Abdul Hasan and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ1556; 1990(3)KarLJ302
ORDER1. These are two petitions filed under Section 397 read with S. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the two orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raichur - one under Section 145(1), Cr.P.C. and the other under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. and the other under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. 2. At the time of hearing Sri Suresh S. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions requested that he may kindly be permitted to convert both the petitions as Criminal Petitions as filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The learned Advocate General appearing for the first respondent and also Sri G. S. Visveswara, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent did not object for such a request. Hence, the request was allowed and the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions is permitted to convert the petitions as Criminal Petitions. Accordingly, the matters were heard. 3. Before deciding the validity or otherwise of the two orders under challenge in thes...
Tag this Judgment!Doddaballapur Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC379; 1992(61)ELT539(Kar); 1990(3)KarLJ431
ORDERM.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is the Doddabalapur Spinning Mills, Doddaballapur. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution it has challenged the competence of respondent 1 to issue the show cause notice as at Annexure-G dated 26-12-1984, to the petition as well as the correctness and legality of the order passed thereon as at Annexure - A dated 25-2-1986. 2. The facts leading to this petition may be stated briefly and they are as follows. Test was conducted of the yarn produced by the petitioner-Company at its manufacturing unit on 14-11-1984 out of the samples obtained from the manufacturer by the 1st respondent. Once again a similar test of the samples obtained was conducted on 16-12-1984. The result of two tests, according to the 1st respondent-Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Cantonment Division, Bangalore, was that the yarn was of over 100 counts. The report indicated that the test conducted showed that the counts of the yarn in questi...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Ramesh Vs. Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR24; 1990(2)KarLJ479
ORDERRama Jois, J. 1. In all these Writ Petitions referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, the following question of law arises for consideration:Whether the obligation to hold election to the offices of President and Vice President of a Co-operative Society functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 every year imposed on the Committee of Management by Sub-section (4) of Section 28A of the Act, applies even during the period when the term of the Managing Committee stands extended by virtue of the Notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 28 of the Act?2. For the purpose of answering the above question, it is necessary and also sufficient to set out the facts in one of the cases. Therefore, we proceed to set out the facts in W.P. No. 3487 of 1989: Primary Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Arsikere, is a Co-operative Society established and functio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »