Karnataka Court April 1991 Judgments
Baburao Yashvantrao Jadhav Vs. Shamrao Khandi Jadhav
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant181; 1992(1)KarLJ164
1. This second appeal between two cousins residing in a remote village called Deginal in Indi taluk, Bijapur District and owning adjacent agricultural lands hearing Block Nos. 64/1 and 69/1 of the same village inherited by them from their grant father Rama Rao by way of partition more than 50 to 60 years ago amply demonstrates how difficult it is to translate into reality the dream of the Father of the Nation the concept of 'Rama Rajya' in India, i.e., Bharat, even 43 years after he attained martyrdom inasmuch as these two cousins already in their sixties have not been able to arrive at an amicable settlement to find a way out to reach the adjacent land of one of them through a small pathway running at the northern end of the other's land in spite of protracted litigation and well intentioned intervention of their learned counsel at the instance of this Court on more than one occasion. Indeed, one of the parties to this appeal had even filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrant Tyres Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1991
Reported in: 1991(33)ECC147; 1991LC25(Karnataka); 1992(61)ELT381(Kar); 1991(2)KarLJ346
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The first petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, and the second-petitioner is a shareholder. This writ petition is filed for a declaration that Notification No. 159/85 dated 16-7-1985 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('Rules'), rescinding the Notification No. 88/84 dated 6-4-1984 (Annexure - 'B'), as void and unenforceable against the petitioners. 2. A writ of mandamus directing the refund of the excess of duty of Rs. 34,36,487 - 10 ps. paid during the period 16-7-1985 to 22-10-1986 is also prayed for as a consequence flowing from the first prayer. 3. The petitioner-company manufactures tyres, tubes and flaps at its factory in Mysore, which where exigible to excise duty under Tariff Item 16 of the I schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act') during the relevant period. 4. Under a scheme of incentives introduced by the Government of In...
Tag this Judgment!Javarasetty Vs. Smt. Ningamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant160; 1992(1)KarLJ160
1. These are appeals by the plaintiff-defendant against the judgments rendered in R. A. 28 of 1989 and R. A. 61 of 1989 on the file of the learned District Judge at Mandya, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the lower appellate Court dated 22nd September, 1990.2. The facts leading this appeal may be stated briefly and they are as follows:--The appellant in this Court, who, for convenience is referred to as the defendant, the rank assigned to him in O.S. No. 55 of 1973 filed by the respondent Ningamma, filed O.S. 37 of 1972 in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Mandya for declaration of his title to the suit schedule properties as the kartha of the undivided family of himself and his sons and further for an injunction restraining the defendant -- Ningamma, the plaintiff in O.S. 55 of 1973 and persons claiming through her or under her or acting for her interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. His case was that he had earlier filed a suit...
Tag this Judgment!Kempsons Foundry Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)KarLJ239; (1992)IILLJ344Kant
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In this petition presented by the management of Kempsons Foundry, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, to the effect that the workmen of Kempsons Foundry are entitled to the service conditions as applicable to the employees of the NGEF with effect from April 9, 1980, the date of reference. 2. Brief facts of the case are these :The NGEF is an undertaking of the State Government. It was established in the year 1961. At the initial stages, it was engaged in the manufacture of electrical transformers and switch gears. In the year 1964 the NGEF started manufacturing of electrical motors. For the purpose of manufacture of electrical motors, it became necessary for the NGEF to secure castings, which forms the body of electrical motors. In a nearby place, a foundry, under the name and style 'Kempsons Foundry' had been established which belonged to a partnership firm known as Kempsons Industries. They began to supply cas...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1861; 1991(1)KarLJ494
ORDERMirdhe, J. 1. This Petition is filed by the petitioner under Sections 439 and 167(2) Cr.P.C. praying for grant of bail to him in Crime No. 114 of 1989 of Nazarbad Police Station, Mysore City. Originally the petition was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, by an amendment, Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is also added, in addition to Section 439 Cr.P.C. But, at the time of the hearing of this petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petition may be considered only under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case.3. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-Deceased Savitha was the daughter of C.K. Ramu. The petitioner is an Instructor in the Department of Tele Communications in Mysore. He was a tenant of C.K. Ramu. There was illicit intimacy between the petitioner and deceased Savitha. He intended to marry her and when the parents of deceased Savi...
Tag this Judgment!D.V. Sathyanarayana and ors. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1991
Reported in: (1992)103CTR(Kar)261; [1992]194ITR409(KAR); [1992]194ITR409(Karn)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Three petitioners entered into an agreement to purchase a house property, No. 57, Manager Ranganna Lane, Bangalore City, from the third respondent. The agreement of sale was entered into on February 23, 1984 and, as against the total consideration of Rs. 2,80,000, the petitioners paid Rs. 1,30,000 as advance.2. The third respondent was a defaulter to the Income-tax Department and the property which the petitioners intended to purchase under the agreement was brought to sale by the Income-tax Department. Auction was held on August 19, 1987, pursuant to the proclamation of sale dated July 8, 1987. The sale was confirmed on September 21, 1987, in favour of respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8, who were the highest bidders.3. After the sale was confirmed the petitioners made an application under Rule 61 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act ('the Act'), seeking cancellation of the sale. A copy of the said application made on September 9, 1987 is produced as anne...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanthi Vs. Dayananda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3826; 1991(4)KarLJ713
ORDERShyamasundar, J.1. There is an interesting controversy in this case touching the interpretation of the powers of this Court to entertain a revision petition from an interlocutory order made by the Court below in respect of which an appeal lies not to this Court but to the Court of the Civil Judge under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Now the Civil Procedure has been amended in the year 1976 and the amendment brings into force Clause (2) of Section 115 which reads as follows:'115(1).......................... (2) The High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.Explanation.....................'There is also an Explanation appended thereto. But that is not of relevance. What the amendment appears to have done is to add Clause (2) to the existing Section which prior to its amendment read:-'115(1) The High Court may call for the record of any cas...
Tag this Judgment!Sarala Shetty Vs. Ramakrishnayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3630; 1992(1)KarLJ89
ORDERRamachandriah, J. 1. This is a tenants' Revision Petition filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the order of eviction dated 19-7-1990 passed against them by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City (for short 'the trial Court') in H.R.C. No. 87/87 both under Clauses (f) and (h) of the oroviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act giving one year's time to them to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule non-residential premises to the respondent-landlord.2. This Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission itself as agreed by Sri B.V. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners - tenants and Sri Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord.3. Respondent is admittedly the owner and landlord of the non-residential premises bearing No. 164/D consisting of a ground floor and first floor in which there are t2 rooms situate in II ...
Tag this Judgment!Javare Gowda Vs. Kempamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC300; 1992(1)KarLJ28
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. There is no merit in this second Appeal. It is a plaintiff's appeal on account of the modification made by the lower appellate Court.2. The facts leading to the case may be stated as follows:Plaintiff is the wife of one Javaregowda respondent herein. She claimed maintenance under Section 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act inter alia on the ground that her husband has taken a second wife and has deserted her and she has no means to support herself. She also claimed past maintenance. Defendant entered appearance through Counsel and filed written statement denying all the plaint allegations.3. On such pleadings, several issues were framed. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant had taken a second wife and deserted the plaintiff and it also came to the conclusion after examining the evidence on record, that plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 300/- as maintenance. The said sum of Rs. 300/- per month was split up into two items one for m...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Engineer (Elec) Vs. Manoranjan Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2698; 1991(2)KarLJ258
Ramachandriah, J. 1. The decision of this second appeal filed by the Karnataka Electricity Board (K.E.B) represented by its Assistant Engineer at Athani centres round the interpretation of Regulation 28 of the Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulations as in force in 1977. The relevant portion of Regulation No. 28(a) reads thus:'28. FAULTY METERS:(a) In the event of the meter being out of order for any reason during any month, the consumption for that month will be determined on the basis of the average consumption over the preceding three months' period and the bill for the month will be prepared accordingly and become payable by the consumer. The faulty meter will be replaced by another one in good working order immediately or the same will be repaired and reinstalled as expeditiously as possible.' 2. The relevant facts are as under:Respondent-plaintiff is a Company called M/s. Manoranjan Private Limited doing business in Cinema at Athani. Reading of consumption of electric energy as r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »