Karnataka Court November 1991 Judgments
Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Electricity Board ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1991
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas426(Kar); 1991(3)KarLJ6
1. This appeal is on board for a preliminary hearing. We think it is desirable to dispose of it at this stage. We have heard counsel accordingly. 2. The appeal is filed by the Karnataka Electricity Board and an officer against the order of the learned single judge directing the Board to restore power supply to the writ petitioner's unit subject to the following conditions : '(i) the petitioner shall pay the actual consumption charges payable every month as per the demand; (ii) the petitioner shall also pay the amount of Rs. 1,79,100 towards additional security deposit in ten equal monthly instalments along with the current bill. The first of such instalments shall be payable on or before August 10, 1991. The actual consumption charges shall be paid as and when the bills are presented; (iii) in case the petitioner commits any default in payment of the instalment amount as ordered, it is open to the respondent to take such action as it is open in law; (iv) power supply shall be restor...
Tag this Judgment!N. Chikkanna and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2254; ILR1992KAR572; 1991(3)KarLJ113
ORDER1. Out of seventeen accused committed to the Court of Sessions at Mandya, who stand trial for offences under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with S. 149, IPC, six of them have been released on bail on grounds including medical grounds and others were rejected bail by the Sessions Court as well as the Court finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that these accused persons are guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the order of this Court rejecting bail to the accused petitioners is dated 16-1-1990. This Court referred to the part played by the accused in the commission of the offence and pointed out that the common object of unlawful assembly on the night of 16-8-1989 was to commit the murder of one Honnaiah in his house and had gone near his house armed with choppers, clubs and stones. When Honnaiah was not to be found, they assaulted seven persons near that house with these weapons and caused injuries to them. Thereafter, they went...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.M.T. Limited (No. 2)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1991
Reported in: [1993]203ITR818(KAR); [1993]203ITR818(Karn)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. In this reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961, we are concerned with assessment for the assessment year 1979-80. Three questions are referred. The first question reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred in respect of the Dairy Machinery Unit is deductible as a expenditure laid out for the purposes of business of the assessee ?' Counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of this court in the assessee's own case (CIT v. Hindustan Machine Tools (No. 2) : [1989]175ITR216(KAR) ). The question is so answered. 2. The second question we are called upon to answer reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in computing depreciation for the water system and sanitation and technical documentation ?' 3. In so far as depreciation for water system and sanit...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Venkatarama Setty Vs. G. Venkataramanaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1169; 1991(3)KarLJ755
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. The Revision petitioner was the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 222 of 1980 on the file of the Munsiff, Gowribidanur. That was a suit filed by him for recovery of Rs. 1,600/- from the defendant on the basis of a promote dated 3-2-1974. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit prayed for. The defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree preferred R.A.No. 13 of 1986 on the file of the Civil Judge, Chickballapur. The learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the endorsement dated 16-1-1977 found on Ex.P3 and that therefore the suit was barred by time and hence he set aside the judgment and decree of the of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. The plaintiff being aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge has preferred this Revision Petition.2. The only point that was canvassed on behalf of the Revision Petitioner is that the suit being one for recovery of the amount due on the basis of a pronote executed by the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Rajappa Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ434; ILR1992KAR284; 1991(3)KarLJ207; (1992)IILLJ714Kant
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is by the claimant in a case under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order of the Employees State Insurance Court (hereinafter referred to as the 'ESI Court'), Bangalore, dated January 23, 1984 passed in ESI Application No. 1/1982, rejecting the claim. 2. The facts of the case are simple and few. The claimant is working as a helper in KIMCO for over 16 years. He is covered under the Act and he is paying regularly the ESI contribution. He was working in the first shift on March 6, 1980. About 6 kms. away from the factory, he was residing in Chikkondugula village. On the day while he was returning to home directly from the factory, when he was about 1 K.M. away from his house, at 5.50 p.m. three persons attacked him with scythes and knives. His left hand was cut off. The bones of his left leg were also cut. He was then taken to Government Hospital and he was treated there for 3 1/2 months. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesh Virupax Deshpande Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR304; 1991(3)KarLJ87
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Appeal is preferred against the final decree dated 17-11 -1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gokak in F.D.P.No. 3/1989.2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff - decree holder filed O.S.No. 172/1981 against the appellant and Respondents 2 to 7 Judgment debtors for recovery of the amount due under the mortgage deed by sale of mortgaged properties. The suit was decreed on 7-11 -1983 and a preliminary decree was passed. The Judgment debtors were granted six months to pay the decretal amount.3. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 172/ 1981, the defendants have preferred R.F.A.No. 257/1984 before this Court and the same is pending. In that appeal the appellants herein obtained an interim order of stay which came to an end on the expiry of 10 weeks from 18-7-1984. The plaintiff/decree holder filed an application on 17-11-1990 under Order 34 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. for drawing up of a final decree. The Judgment debtors resisted the application on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Arvind Vs. Government of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR307; 1991(3)KarLJ213
K.A. Swami, J.1. Office objection is overruled. The Appeal filed by the appellants is maintainable. The respondents have been served.2. As the Appeal lies in a very narrow compass, it is admitted, production of Paper Books is dispensed with, and heard for final disposal.3. This Appeal is preferred by plaintiffs 7 and 8 against the Judgment and decree dated 11-2-1991 passed by the learned V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No. 3826/1988.3.1. The only point that arises for consideration is:Whether the trial Court is justified in law in dismissing the suit?4. The appellants along with respondents 8 to 13 filed the aforesaid suit for the following reliefs:'(a) For a declaration that the preliminary Notification dated 19-9-1977, published by defendants 1 and 2 in the Karnataka. Gazette dated 29-9-1979 in Notification No. BDA/SPLAO/ CRPR(S)-131/77-78, under Sub-sections 1 and 3 of Section 17 of Act 12/76 and the final Notification published by the defendants 1 and 2 dated 7-2-19...
Tag this Judgment!Manikchand Joshi Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1946; 1991(3)KarLJ661
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. These three Writ Petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore in HRC. Appeal No. 7/89-90, HRC Appeal No. 6/89-90 and HRC Appeal No. 5/89-90 respectively. The said appeals were preferred by the respective petitioners, before the Divisional Commissioner against the order dated 20-10-1989 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Bangalore District, Bangalore on an application filed by respondents-3 to 6 in these three petitions under Section 37(b)(c)(d) & (e) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act'). The Divisional Commissioner in the said three appeals has confirmed the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of these three petitions, briefly stated, are as under:The present respondents-3 to 6 were the petitioners before the Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Bangalore District, Bangalore. They had filed an application befo...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Vishwa Bharathi House Building Co- ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4407; 1992(1)KarLJ523
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. This Appeal by the Bangalore Development Authority is directed against the order of the learned single Judge directing the appellant to consider and dispose of the respondent's application for sanction of the lay-out plan in accordance with law within ninety days of the receipt of the order.2. Brief facts are as follows:-The respondent is a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Society along with the All Karnataka Young Writers and Artists Association, Bangalore, preferred an application on 5/10th February 1986 under Section 32(2) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (the B.D.A. Act) seeking approval for the formation of a residential lay-out in Sy. Nos. 26, 28, 29 and 30 of Avalahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in accordance with the lay-out plan submitted with the application. That application was made in their capacity as the owners of the said land. By his communication dated 11th April 1986 (Annexure C) addre...
Tag this Judgment!T. Rajappa Vs. Employees' State Ins. Corpn. and Anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: I(1993)ACC116
K. Jagannathan Shetty, J.1. This appeal is by the claimant in a case under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court (hereinafter referred to as the 'E.S.I. Court'), Bangalore, dated 13.1.1984 passed is ESI Application No. 1 of 1982, rejecting the claim.2. The facts of the case are simple and few. The claimant is working as a helper in KIMCO for over 16 years. He is covered under the Act and he is paying regularly the E.S.I. contribution. He was working in the first shift on 6.3.1980. About 6 km. away from the factory, he was residing in Chikkondugula village. On the day while he was returning home directly from the factory, when he was about 1 km. away from his house, at 5.50 p.m., three persons attacked him with scythes and knives. His left hand was cut off. The bones of his left leg were also cut. He was then taken to Government Hospital and he was treated there for 3-1/2 months. He was, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »