Karnataka Court October 1991 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.
Mary D'souza Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant331; 1992(1)KarLJ464
ORDERM. Rama Jois, Acting C.J.1. In this writ appeal the following question of law arises for consideration :Whether the provisions of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked for condoning the delay in making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, beyond the period of 90 days prescribed in the said section?2. The brief facts of the case are these:--Appellant was the owner of 36 cents of land in Karkala Casba village, Karkala Taluk. This land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1983. The appellant challenged the legality of the order before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7966/1986. That writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 524/ 1988. That writ appeal was dismissed on 29-3-1988. Thereafter, the appellant who was served with notice of award under S. 12(2) of the Act on 28-5-1986 itself filed an application under S. 18 of the Lan...
Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (intelligence) Vs. N.N. Jariwala
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4414
M. Rama Jois, Ag. C.J. 1. This writ appeal is presented by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Judge allowing the writ petition holding that the compounding fee that could be collected from the 2nd respondent was only Rs. 1,000 and not Rs. 2,000 and, therefore, the appellant should refund the balance of the amount. 2. The brief facts of the case are these : The respondent is carrying on the business of purchasing and selling silk fabrics. His business premises was inspected by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence, on August 5, 1987. After verifying the stock of art silk and pure silk fabrics the officer was of the view that the respondent had committed an offence punishable under section 29(1)(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act') and a notice to that effect was issued on September 26, 1987 (annexure 'B'). Subsequently having regard to the objections raised by the respondent, a notice dated November 7, 1987, under section 29(2)(d) of the Ac...
Mary D'Souza Vs. Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4266
Rama Jois, Ag.C.J.1. In this Writ Appeal the following question of law arises for consideration;Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked for condoning the delay in making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, beyond the period of 90 days prescribed in the said Section?2. The brief facts of the case are these:- Appellant was the owner of 36 cents of land in Karkala Casba village, Karkala Taluk. This land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1983. The appellant challenged the legality of the order before this Court in Writ Petition No. 7966/1986. That Writ Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 524/1988. That Writ Appeal was dismissed on 29-3-1988. Thereafter, the appellant who was served with notice of award under Section 12(2) of the Act on 28-5-1986 itself filed an application under Section 18 of the La...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Smt. Kadarbi, Major and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ472; AIR1992Kant342; [1993]76CompCas419a(Kar)
ORDERB. N. Krishnan, J.1. Whether the claimants, who sought to recover compensation in respect of the death of the person in a motor vehicle accident and who got awards in their favour both under the Workmen's Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act, cannot exercise their option to claim compensation under either of the enactments in the appeals filed by the insurer against the respective awards, is the short but interesting point that arises for consideration in these appeals.To understand the circumstances under which this point has come up for consideration, only a few facts need be stated.2. One Mohammed Hussain was employed as a driver under one Sri N. K. Dada Peer in his lorry bearing registration No. MYY-7004 and in the course of such employment he was driving the said lorry from Davangere to Kollegal. On 20-4-1988 when he was proceeding on National Highway No. 4, just before Hiriyur he stopped the lorry and went to ease himself. When he was returning back to get into his lorry,...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Kadarbi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1991
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas308(Kar); ILR1991KAR4511; 1991(4)KarLJ275
B.N. Krishnan, J.1. Whether the claimants who sought to recover compensation in respect of the death of the person in a motor vehicle accident and who got awards in their favour both under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, cannot exercise their option to claim compensation under either of the enactments in the appeals filed by the insurer against the respective awards is the short but interesting point that arises for consideration in these appeals.2. To understand the circumstances under which this point has come up for consideration, only a few facts need by stated.3. One Mohammed Hussain was employed as a driver under one Sri N. K. Dada Peer in his lorry bearing registration No. MYY-7004 and, in the course of such employment, he was driving the said lorry from Davangere to Kollegal. On April 20, 1988, when he was proceeding on National Highway No. 4, just before Hiriyur, he stopped the lorry and went to ease himself. When he was returning to get...
A.A. Kilachand Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2170; 1991(4)KarLJ705
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. H.C.G.P, to take notice. At the admission stage itself as desired by learned Govt. Pleader and Sri. C.H. Hanumantharaya, case heard on merits. Notice to respondents dispensed with.2. Order under challenge relates to refusal to issue copy of the document produced, which reads as follows;'Heard regarding the application filed for order of certified copy of documents. Since the documents are not marked, certified copies cannot be granted. Hence application rejected.'3. Approach of the learned Magistrate in not considering the request of the petitioners runs contrary to Rule 2 Chapter 14 of Criminal Rules of Practice of 1968.4. Chapter XIV Rule 2 reads as follows;'Parties to a case are entitled at any stage of the proceeding to obtain copies of the record of a case, including exhibits which have been admitted in evidence.'Further Sections 74 and 76 of Indian Evidence Act enable anyone to seek and obtain certified copy from a Court or an authority who in charge of ...
Chamansab Madansab Kumbarwadi Vs. Roshan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4303; 1992(1)KarLJ462
K.A. Swami, J.1. As a copy of the Judgment was not produced along with the Writ Appeal, we got the records of the petition produced before us and perused the order dated 23-9-1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 11424/1991 against which the Writ Appeal in question is preferred.2. The appellants were nominated by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 30th April 1991 as Directors of the 7th respondent - The Muslim Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Talikoti Taluk. The respondents-1 to 6 challenged the validity of the order of the Stale (government in W.P.No. 11424/1991 nominating the appellants. The learned Single Judge has held that the requirements of Section 29(1) of the Act were not satisfied; that the nominations did not fall either under Clause (a), or (c) or (d) of Section 29(1) of the Act.3. Sri S. Vijaya Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing the appellants, has ...
Ramachandra Laxman Doddamani and Others Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: [1993]77CompCas244(Kar); ILR1992KAR294; 1991(3)KarLJ91
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated October 18, 1983, passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum, in O.S. No. 24 of 1979. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,33,752.10 with future interest at 15 per cent. per annum on the aforesaid sum. 3. The trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,26,560.93 with future interest at 15 per cent. per annum from October 22, 1981, the date on which the plaintiff-bank received the compensation amount under the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants by learned counsel, Sri A. V. Albal, that the very basis of the amount arrived at by the trial court is not correct; that at any rate, in the light of the Karnataka Act, 17 of 1990, the decree is required to be modified. The correctness of these contentions is disputes by Sri Kamath, ...
Yeshvir Goyal and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR119(KAR); [1993]199ITR119(Karn); 1991(3)KarLJ18
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.1. Though the matter is listed for admission, on the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government standing counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. Admit. 3. This petition is filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the complaint lodged against the petitioners for the offences punishable under section 420 and 120B, Indian Penal Code, read with sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The point for consideration in this case is whether, in the absence of prima facie and a reasonable cause to proceed with the investigation, this court should refuse to exercise its powers under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Sri B. V. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that, if the entire complaint is read, it does not disclose that offences punishable under section 420 read with section 120B, IPC, have been made out. 5. Sri Shylendra Kumar, learned Central Government st...
Deputy Commissioner Vs. Emmanuel Ramapuram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-10-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR910; 1991(3)KarLJ297
Hiremath, J. 1. The appellants challenge by this Appeal the Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court of the District Judge of Kodagu at Madikeri setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court of the Civil Judge at Madikeri in OS.No.4/78. The properties involved are Survey Numbers 129/3, 154/5, 170, 154/8, 173 and 174 of Cheleavara Village, Napoklu Nad in Kodagu District. The total extent of these lands comes to 468 acres 72 cents, the largest among them being S.No.154/5 measuring 431.42 acres. Admittedly these were Jamma-Malai lands. The original holder was one Pattacharavanda Cariappa. When exactly these lands for cardamom cultivation were granted to Cariappa is not available. As the said Cariappa had become a defaulter in the year 1927 for payment of land revenue of 168 rupees 11 annas the lands were sold by the Government in that year in auction and Palecanda Medappa purchased fern for Rs. 170/-. The said Medappa was the holder thereof till the same were sold to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »