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.
B. Subbaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3740; 1992(1)KarLJ419
1. These three criminal appeals were posted for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Chandrakantaraja Urs, J., (since retired) and one of us (Jagannatha Hegde, J.). They were divided in their opinion. In the circumstances, as provided under section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the appeals were posted before one of us (Rama Jois, J), for hearing. After hearing the matter, the opinion and the order was pronounced on 4-10-1991. In doing so, reference was made to para 3(ii) of the judgment to the two judgments of Calcutta High Court, namely, Nemal v. State of West Bengal, : AIR1966Cal194 and Jugal Kishore v. C.P. Magistrate, Calcutta, : AIR1968Cal220 . In each of the two decisions, the third Judge who heard the criminal appeal in accordance with Section 429 of the 1898 Code, was of the view that in view of the language of that Section to the effect that the third Judge should deliver his opini...
K. Krishnappa Vs. Registrar Evaluation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4111; 1992(1)KarLJ326
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. The Writ Petition No. 11446/1991 is filed by the Principal, Visveswarapura College of Law, Bangalore first petitioner and the General Secretary of Vokkaligara Sangha, V.V. Puram, K.R. Road, Bangalore-second petitioner. Since common questions arise for consideration in this Writ Petition and the connected Writ Petitions they are taken up together for consideration and decision.2. A few facts which are necessary for disposal of these cases as gathered from the pleadings in W.P.No. 11446/1991 are:Visveswarapura College of Law is run by Vokkaligara Sangha. The strength in the said College is more than 1500 students studying the LL.B. Course of three years. This apart, the College has five years teaching Course also in law. The first petitioner in W.P.No. 11446/1991 was appointed as the Chief Superintendent of the Examination Centre of V.V. Puram Law College for conducting the exams of all the three years LL.B. Course during April, 1991. The I year LL.B. Examinati...
Thammegowda Vs. Siddegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4506; 1992(1)KarLJ459
K.A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of admission the respondent has put in appearance. Necessary records are also produced before us. Therefore, this Appeal is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. This Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 30th January 1991 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandya in O.S. No. 139/1986. The Appeal is preferred by defendants 1 and 2. The respondent is the plaintiff. The 1st defendant is no other than the father of the plaintiff. The suit was for partition and separate possession of the 1/3rd share of the plaintiff. The suit properties consisted of movables and immovables. 'A' schedule consisted of immovable properties and B' schedule consisted of movable properties. At the out set Sri M. Shivappa, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted there even though the trial Court has passed a decree and awarded 1/3rd share in the moveable properties as described in 'B' schedule, to the plaintiff, in the light of the evidence on re...
State of Karnataka Vs. Firm 'Hotel Nagarjun' and others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1697
ORDER1. The short but interesting and important question which falls for determination in these two connected revision petitions filed by the State Government under Ss. 397 and 401, Cr.P.C. against different but similar orders of the learned Special Judge, Gulbarga in Special Case Numbers 3/88 and 51/87 is :- Whether the Sessions Judge functioning as Special Court under S. 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') was justified in discharging the respondents-accused charge-sheeted for the offence of contravention of the provisions of certain control orders promulgated relating to essential commodities under Section 3 of the Act and made punishable under S. 7 of the Act on the sole ground that the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner had released the seized essential commodity to the accused under S. 6A of the Act by holding that he had not violated any of the provisions of the control order and, therefore, he cannot go behind the order made under S. ...
Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1991
Reported in: 1992(1)KarLJ576; [1992]86STC170(Kar)
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioners in these cases, who am manufacturers and exporters of goods, are entitled to import replenishment licence (hereinafter referred to as 'the REP licence') under the Import-Export Regulations framed under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, which facilitates import of goods that are necessary for and to go into the manufacture of items which are exported. 2. Applications for issue of REP licence are made by manufacturers exporters under certain schemes pursuant to procedures laid down thereunder and issued by the Controller of Imports and Exports, depending on the export performance of the manufacturer/importer. The REP licence so issued can he used by the manufacturers or importers to import goods to replenish materials used in production of goods which were exported or for further production of goods which are to be exporter, or that such licences can be freely transferred or disposed of to any person and permission or licence of the lice...
Mukundaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR812; 1991(3)KarLJ117
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. The point for consideration in this case is that, on a private complaint if the matter fs referred to the police for enquiry and to submit a report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on receipt of such a report and its acceptance, whether the Magistrate can order to issue notice to the complainant for fresh examination. To answer this point, it is proper to make a reference to the order under challenge which reads as follows:'10-5-1991. State by A.P.P.AccusedNotice issued to the complainant.'Case called out.Complainant absentRe-issue notice to complainant.Call on 20-7-1991.' 2. A few facts leading to the above order are:Respondent-2 had advanced a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner. On demand, the petitioner issued a cheque for the said sum representing that as soon as it is presented for encashment, the same would be honoured. Believing his words, the 2nd respondent presented the cheque for encashment. It was dishonoured. Hence, the 2nd respondent issued a no...
Tejmal Mehta Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3891; 1992(1)KarLJ336
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner is a detenu, detained under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ('COFEPOSA Act' for short), by an order dated 4-5-1991 made by the first respondent. 2, On 15-3-1991, Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ('DRI' for short), Bangalore, along with two witnesses followed the petitioner to his premises, after he came out of an autorickshaw. Petitioner was shown the search warrant and his suitcase was searched. Thereafter, person of the petitioner was searched. A brownish cloth strip tied around the waist of the petitioner was removed; it was found to be a cloth pouch; it had a zip fastener and eight pockets, each containing a paper packet. These packets contained gold biscuits with foreign markings. In all, 17 gold biscuits were recovered from the cloth pouch. The total weight of the gold biscuits was 1982.200 gms. valued at Rs. 7,05,500/-. One of the witnesses w...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indirabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ292; ILR1991KAR4229
Rama Jois, J. 1. In this Appeal presented by the National Insurance Company against an order made under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 awarding interim compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent-claimant, the following important question of law arises for consideration: Whether an insurance policy issued by an Insurance Company on any day expressly specifying the date and time of issue on cover note or the policy, covers the risk in respect of the accident caused earlier on the same day, by the vehicle in respect of which such policy is issued, even though the insurance premium was paid and policy was issued, after the accident? 2. Brief facts of the case are these:- Respondent No. 1 presented a claim petition under Section 110-D of the 1939 Act seeking compensation of Rs. 3,55,000/- towards death of her husband Kallappa in a motor accident. During the pendency of the said claim petition the 1st respondent made an application under Section 92A of the Act for awarding ...
C. Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR276; 1991(3)KarLJ388
ORDERShyamsundar, J.1. This Writ Petition is today listed to hear the prayer by the 4th respondent for an early disposal and accordingly it is I propose to dispose it off finally.2. Acceding to the prayer for grant of an early hearing, I have heard Smt. Manjuladevi for Mr. Suresh, appearing for petitioner and Shri Sadashivappa for respondent-4 and the learned High Court Government Advocate for R-1 to R-3.3. This Writ Petition arises from a set of concurrent orders of the Rent Controller allotting a first floor premises bearing No. 38/F, 8th 'F' Main, III Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011 to respondent No. 4 herein. That order is at Annexure-A. Subsequently, it came to be affirmed by the Appellate Authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore by an order made in HRC DC (A) 103/89-90 dated 27-11-1990 as per Annexure-B. That order contains as many as 10 paragraphs. Paras 1 to 9 are devoted to setting out the facts of the case, the grounds of appeal and the arguments of either s...
Modern Homeopaths Society Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3924; 1992(1)KarLJ349
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are: The first petitioner is a registered Society which runs the second petitioner-College. The first petitioner-Society was registered with the object of preserving and propagating the principles and practice of Homeopathy. In furtherance of its object the said Society started a Homeopathic College - second petitioner herein in the year 1968. The petitioners claim that the College is one of the oldest Institutions of repute in the State of Karnataka possessing all necessary infrastructures such as building facility, teaching staff, hospital facility and library. On the recommendation of the Board of Homeopathic System of Medicine the State of Karnataka accorded recognition to the College and such recognition was continued from time to time. By the order dated 19/12-12-1987 recognition was continued for the academic years 1986-87 and 1987-88. The College even received the grants from the Government for the years 1983-84 a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »