Karnataka Court December 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.
Smt. Gouri Bi and ors. Vs. Khemraj and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC583
M. Rama Jois and B.N. Krishnan, JJ.1. These 105 appeals have been preferred by the various claimants who title Claim petitions seeking to recover compensation in respect of either the injuries sustained by them or the death of some one on whom they were dependent for their sustenance, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitions preferred by them under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short 'the Act') The Tribunal without recording any evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident in which the several persons sustained injuries or died, could not be held to arise out of the user of the motor vehicle and as such it had no jurisdiction to try the Claim petitions.2. The case put forward by the claimants in all the cases in brief is as hereunder:On 30th October, 1985 a tanker truck bearing registration No. MST-6277 belonging to the 2nd respondent filled with motor spirit at Wadla Terminal, Bombay left Bombay towards its destination viz., Hyderabad. On 1.11.1985 at ab...
Shri Anwar Abdulla Etc. Vs. the Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3616; ILR1992KAR353; 1991(3)KarLJ262
ORDER1. These are four separate writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, by which the petitioner concerned in each of them has sought the quashing of the detention order and declaration made against him respectively under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of S. 3 and sub-section (1) of S. 9 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the COFEPOSA Act'). 2. As the material facts relating to the four petitions being almost common, they could be briefly stated thus : On the morning of 21-2-1991, an Arab Dhow, 'A1 Niamat', which was said to be moving in a suspicious manner in the Customs waters of the Coast of Coondapur, appears to have been sighted by the Coast Guards in the Coast Guard Ship 'Varuna' and asked to be stopped with stop signals given therefor. That Arab Dhow not having responded to stop signals, appears to have been chased by the Coast Guard Ship and apprehended by the Coast Guards. Thereafter, the Arab Dho...
Jayakunvar Manilal Shah Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1053; 1992(2)KarLJ583
K.A. Swami, J.1. These two Appeals arise out of the Judgment and Decree dated 9.3.1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sirsi in O.S. No. 6/1986.2. R.F.A. No. 396/90 is filed by the legal representatives of defendant No. 3 who are numbered as defendants 3(A) and 3(B) and defendants 4 and 5. R.F.A.No. 219/1991 is preferred by defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 6 to 9, The first respondent in both the appeals is the plaintiff-Syndicate Bank. The other respondents in R.F.A.No. 396/90 are the appellants in R.F.A.No. 219/91 and similarly, the other respondents in R.F.A.No. 219/91 are the appellants in R.F.A.No. 396/90.3. In this Judgment, the parties will be referred to the position they held in the trial Court.4. Both the Appeals are heard together.5. Though respondents 2 to 7 in R.F.A.No. 396/90 are not served but they are appellants in RFA No. 219 of 1991. Therefore, Sri S.P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 219/91 submitted that he may be permitted to represent responde...
Lakshmi Devi Vs. Satyanarayana Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2466; 1991(4)KarLJ249
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. This is landlords' Revision Petition. Petitioner-1 is the mother and Petitioners 2 and 3 are her sons. They filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(d), (h) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that the premises in question is a non-residential one; that the premises was leased out to one Gangoji Rao who was the father of Respondents 1 to 3 and husband of Respondent-4; that Gangoji Rao was carrying on a non-vegetarian restaurant; that after his death the lease in question lapsed; that the respondents who are the legal representatives of Gangoji Rao instead of handing over vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlords continued to be in possession of the same by trespassing on the property and thus they are trespassers; that the premises in question is required by the landlords for their bona fide use and occupation to start Silk Saree and Cut Pieces Goods business in the said premises, et...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›