Karnataka Court June 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.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veeramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1991
Reported in: 1(1992)ACC12
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this appeal presented under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the following important questions arise for consideration:(1) Whether in an appeal presented under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an appellant presenting the appeal is required to deposit Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, whichever is less, if only directed by the High Court?AND(2) How the deposit should be made?2. Section 173 of the Act reads:173.APPEALS: (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court:Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty five thousand rupees or fifty per cent, of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court:Provided furthe...
Union of India Vs. M/S. Sattur Nataraja Traders
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ877; AIR1992Kant301; ILR1992KAR392
ORDERSwami, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 30th September 1980 passed by the learned IV Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 673/1977.2. The respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff is a firm. It filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,414/- with court costs and current interest from the defendant/ railway being the value of the consignment -- 346 bundles of safety matches entrusted to the defendant on 17-7-1974 under Ex.D1 to be delivered at Kankaria; that according to the case of the plaintiff the goods were not delivered nor the arrival of the goods at Kankaria was notified; that the goods caught fire on 24-9-1974; that due care and caution was not taken by the railway in keeping the goods therefore, the railway administration was responsible for payment of the value of the goods amounting to Rs. 20,414/-. Before filing the suit a notice as required by law was also issued. The suit was filed...
Munivenkatappa Vs. Venkateshappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3255; 1991(3)KarLJ407
B. Jagannatha Hegde, J. 1. This is a Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) read with Section 104 CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 1-8-1989 passed in R.A. No. 69 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Kolar, allowing the appeal, setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 30-11-1987 in O.S. No. 419 of 1981 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Kolar, remanding the matter to him for fresh disposal in accordance with law, 2. The appellant filed a suit in O.S. No. 419 of 1981 before the Principal Munsiff, Kolar, for declaration of his title to the suit property and permanent injunction. The trial Court held that the appellant did not prove his title and therefore rejected his prayer for declaration of his title. However, his prayer for permanent injunction was granted on the ground that he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, respondent herein, who was 6th defendant befor...
N.G.E.F. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT518(Kar)
1. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies' Act and is an undertaking of the Government of Karnataka. The Company is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of Transformers, Electric Switch Gears, Switch Boards and other Electrical Goods. Among the electrical goods manufactured by the petitioner Company, are Electrical Laminations and Stampings which are exigible to duty under the erstwhile Entry 28-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 2. The petitioner has, in this writ petition, challenged the show cause notice dated 21-3-1988 (Annexure-H) as modified by the Corrigenda (Annexures J & K) and has also prayed for issue of a mandamus to respondent No. 1, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore restraining him from proceeding with the proceedings of adjudication pursuant to the impugned show cause notice. This writ petition was filed on 5-6-1989 and an interim order was issued on 15-6-1989 and after notice to the respond...
Thimmarayaswamy Vs. Gurumurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2373; 1991(2)KarLJ300
Mohan, C.J.1. This is rather a peculiar case in which the appellant Sangha merely claims that in the allotment of a site by the Local Mandal Panchayath in favour of the first respondent, it has violated the norms set out under Section 50 of the Village Panchayath Act. Where therefore no applications are invited and no notice was given to the general public, nor was there any sanction under Section 50 of the Act from the Government to enable the Panchayath to make allotment, it is open to the appellant - Rate payer to question the validity of allotment. This was the strong argument put forth by Sri Mohandas N. Hegde. In support of this he has relied on AIR 1949 Bombay 229 wherein it had been held that a Rate payer who is interested in expenditure of local body, could question if the funds were not utilised in the proper way. Therefore he could maintain the Writ Petition.2. We have to note in this case that the appellant is not even an individual tax payer, but Yuvaka Rytha Sangha - an A...
Karnataka Power Corporation Employees' Co-operative Housing Society Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant156; 1991(2)KarLJ608
ORDERS. Mohan, C. J.1. The important question that arises for our consideration in this case is, whether the principle of Promissory Estoppel would apply so as to compel the Government to acquire certain lands.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :The appellant herein selected certain lands in Cholanaikanahalli and Nagawara villages. This was with a view to form a layout in the lands which had been shown in the comprehensive development plan for residential purposes. The appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 42.00 lakhs to the land owners. But it could not purchase the lands from the land owners on account of the restrictions placed for purchase of lands by the society. Therefore, the appellant approached the Government and made request to acquire the lands. By letter dt. 2-4-1986 a direction was issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, to issue S. 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisi...
Karnataka Power Corporation Employees' Co-operative Housing Society Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2341
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. The important question that arises for our consideration in this case is, whether the principle of Promissory Estoppel would apply so as to compel the Government to acquire certain lands.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The appellant herein selected certain lands in Cholanaikanahalli and Nagawara villages. This was with a view to form a layout in the lands which had been shown in the Comprehensive Development Plan for residential purposes. The appellant advanced a sum of Rs. 42.00 lakhs to the land owners. But it could not purchase the lands from the land owners on account of the restrictions placed for purchase of lands by the Society. Therefore, the appellant approached the Government and made request to acquire the lands. By letter dated 2-4-1986 a direction was issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, to issue Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acqui...
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant3
ORDERM. Rama Jois, J.1. In these Miscellaneous First Appeals presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the National Insurance Company Limited, a Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The question reads :--Whether by force of clause (ii) of the proviso to S. 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury to any person travelling in a vehicle, though it is not a vehicle constructed and adapted and meant in law for carrying passengers for hire or reward, even to the extent of number of passengers permitted to be carried in the vehicle though not for hire or reward, even in the absence of any extra coverage secured by the owner under the policy concerned in respect of such passengers?2. Brief facts of the case, in the first batch of cases which are sufficient for answering th...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dundamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1991
Reported in: 1992ACJ1; [1992]75CompCas141(Kar); ILR1991KAR2045; 1991(3)KarLJ505
1. In these miscellaneous first appeals presented under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the National Insurance Company Limited, a Division Bench of this court has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the Full Bench under section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The question reads : 'Whether by force of clause (ii) of the proviso to section 95(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury to any person travelling in a vehicle, though it is not a vehicle constructed and adapted and meant in law for carrying passengers for hire or reward, even to the extent of number of passengers permitted to be carried in the vehicle though not for hire or reward, even in the absence of any extra coverage secured by the owner under the policy concerned in respect of such passengers ?' 2. Brief facts of the case, in the first batch of cases which are sufficient for answering the quest...
B.G. Gangadharappa Vs. S. Chandrashekhar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3772; 1992(1)KarLJ216
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant is against the degree dated June 13, 1979, made in R. A. No. 92 of 1976, on the file of the 8th Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City, confirming the decree dated February 23, 1976, made in O. S. No. 2389 of 1964, on the file of the First Additional Munsiff, Bangalore. 2. This court, while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial questions for consideration, which read as under : '(1) Whether the lower appellate court, after having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established that the sale deed dated July 19, 1928, standing in the name of the deceased 2nd defendant, was a benamidar transaction and in reality is was intended for the joint family of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 and 4, was justified in law in holding that the transfer made in favour of the 1st defendant was valid without recording a finding terms of the provisions contained in section 41 of the Transfer of Pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »