Karnataka Court December 1991 Judgments
Asst. Commissioner-cum-land Acquisition Officer Vs. Mallaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR704
Venkatachala, J.1. Whether the amount awardable under Sub-section (1A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the Act') is awardable for lands, the possession of which had been taken by the Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition Officer) prior to the Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published in the Gazette respecting such lands, being an important question raised for our Decision in this Appeal, we have admitted it and are proceeding to decide it on merits after hearing learned Counsel appearing on both sides.2. The material facts, on the basis of which the said question is raised for our Decision, briefly stated, are these:10 acres 3 guntas of agricultural land in Survey No. 84 and 4 acres 34 guntas of agricultural land in Survey No. 85, both lands situated at Hurudihalli village of Kudligi Taluk in Bellary District, were acquired for a public purpose, to wit, R.D.Project of the State Government, pursuant to the Preliminary Notification unde...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.R. Shivaprakash and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ247
B.N. Krishnan, J.1. These appeals have been preferred by the insurer of the bus bearing registration No. MEU 4545 which was involved in an accident on 30.5.1989 on K.H. Road in Chikmagalur town, resulting in the death of one Sidde Gowda and another person Velu and injuries to one Ninge Gowda.2. It was urged by the learned advocate for the insurer that the Tribunal was not right in fastening the liability to satisfy the award It was urged that there was breach of condition of the policy, in that the vehicle had been entrusted by the insured to a person who was not holding a valid licence and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability to satisfy the award on the. On facts we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in negativing the contention advanced by the insurer in this regard. It may be noticed that apart from the fact that the insurer has not established that there has been any breach of the condition of the policy, there was not even a plea taken b...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Waliulla Baig Vs. Jayarama Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR226; 1991(3)KarLJ239
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. We are concerned with the interpretation of the following qualification:'(b) the candidate must have possessed experience of not less than 5 years in an administrative position in the Government or Statutory Body;'The learned Single Judge took the view that this meant that the candidate should have held a specific administrative post as such for not less than five years. The contention of the appellants is that that is not what the Regulation requires. Its requirement would be satisfied if the candidate possessed experience of not less than five years in a position which required him to deal with administrative matters.2. The Selection Committee consisted of the Additional Secretary to Government, Home Department, as Chairman, the Director of Instructions, the Registrar, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, the Deputy Director of Social Welfare, Bangalore, and the Dean of the University of Agricultural Sciences as members. They recommended that the following ca...
Tag this Judgment!Saroja Vs. Krishnamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1138; 1991(3)KarLJ248
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. CRP No. 3076/1991 is by the tenant against the partial order of eviction made by the trial Court, while CRP. No. 450/91 is by the land lady against the order denying her the benefit of the entire premises.2. The landlady sought eviction of the tenant from the schedule premises on the grounds that she required the schedule premises for her own use and occupation and her requirement is reasonable and bonafide; she also alleged that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of another premises of his own, which is suitable for the residence of the tenant. The landlady averred in her eviction petition that during the life time of her husband the premises was built by him raising handloans from his friends and also by borrowing from the L.I.C. and in order to clear the loan, he had to lease the premises to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs 325/-, with an understanding that the tenant should vacate the premises in five years and the lease was during t...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanumul Baid Vs. Ananthapadmanabha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1133; 1991(3)KarLJ255
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. In the course of an eviction petition filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), which was filed by the petitioner, against the respondent, he sought to mark two documents in support of his claim that he had right to the property, which he leased to the respondent, one of the documents was an alleged deed of usufructuary mortgage, under which the original owner had supposed to have mortgaged the premises in favour of the petitioner, with possession. The other document is allegedly a lease deed for eleven months under which, respondent is stated to have taken the premises on lease from the petitioner, the mortgagee. Both these documents were neither registered, nor properly stamped; hence the trial Court refused to receive them in evidence.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, earlier, the premises in question was mortgaged to the petitioner by way of deposit of title deeds, and it had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Yogambika Vs. Narsingh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-18-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR717
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Appeal by plaintiffs is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10,7.1991 passed by the learned [II Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S.No. 2205/82. The respondent is the defendant. The appellants filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 29.4.1980 and also for possession of the suit schedule property.2. The trial Court though has held issue Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiffs but has refused to pass a decree for specific performance on the ground that it is not a case for granting such a decree. Accordingly, it has passed a decree for refund of a sum of Rs. 37,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs. 5,000/- from 29.3.1980; on Rs. 20,000/- from 28/29 April, 1980 and on Rs. 12,000/- from 16.9.1981. The current interest on Rs. 37,000/- is also awarded at the same rate. The future or further interest from the date of decree till realisation has been awarded at the rate of 6% per annum o...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Khan Vs. the State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3566; 1991(4)KarLJ262
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under S. 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 24-11-1990 passed by the J.M.F.C. Shahapur, in C.C. No. 1215 of 1985. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader fully and perused the record of the case. 3. The Shahapur Police filed charge sheet against five persons alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Ss. 143 and 506, I.P.C. and also under S. 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Incitement of Refuse or to Defer Payment of Tax Act, 1981. The learned Magistrate framed charges for the said offences against the accused in that case and all the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution led its evidence and after hearing both sides the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused in that case under S. 248(1), Cr.P.C. for the offences alleged against them. While acquitting the accused in the said case, he also ordered the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)KarLJ68
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. This is a reference under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'). The question that we are called upon to answer, at the instance of the Revenue, reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by holding that the value of debentures issued in favour of financial institutions represented borrowings from these institutions and that they fulfilled the requirements of the provisions of rule 1(v) of the Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76. 3. In arriving at the capital base for the computation of surtax, the assessee claimed that the average value of the debentures which it had issued in favour of five institutions formed part of its capital base for surtax purpose. The debentures were issued on October 1, 1973. They were issued to the Industrial C...
Tag this Judgment!Umar Haji Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-17-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2145
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. In this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the orders, Annexure-B and C, made by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, respondents 2 and 1 herein, respectively. He has sought for quashing the same for the reasons stated in the Writ Petition.2. Two acres of land in Sy.No.2/17 situated in Badaga Banangala Village, Virajpet Taluk, Coorg District, were granted, purported to be under Rule 122(2) read with Rule 123(4) of the Rules framed under the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation, (No. 1 of 1899) (Regulation for short), by the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu, in favour of Harijan Byra Mestri, by his order dated 16.5.1967 in proceedings No. C6.7207/57-58, subject to condition, inter alia, that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land. Pursuant to the said grant saguvali chit was also issued...
Tag this Judgment!K.E.B. Vs. T.S. Venkatarangaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR219; 1991(3)KarLJ133
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. This is an Appeal by the employer, the Karnataka Electricity Board, against the order of the learned Single Judge quashing disciplinary proceedings against an employee.2. The employee joined the Karnataka Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') in 1950 as a Store-Keeper. Consequent upon a preliminary enquiry, the Chief Engineer, Electrical (General), who was the Disciplinary Authority insofar as the employee was concerned, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employee in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 11 (2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, as adopted by the Board. By the same order, he conferred upon the Executive Engineer, Electrical, Master Plan Division, Bangalore, of the Board, the Authority to be the Specially Empowered Authority to frame charges against the employee and to conduct the disciplinary enquiry. On 6th June 1980 the. Specially Empowered Authority issued a charge-sheet to the emplo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »