Karnataka Court August 1991 Judgments
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Vaishali Transport Forward ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas296(Kar); 1991(3)KarLJ198
R. Ramakrishna, J.1. An important question that requires determination in this revision is : 'Whether, the court below is justified in dismissing the suit of the petitioners on the ground that notice to the common carrier was not issued as contemplated under section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 ?' 2. The undisputed facts are, on April 30, 1987, a consignment consisting of clothes was entrusted to the respondent, a public carrier to be delivered at Akola. The respondent accepted the consignment under G.C. Note No. 257353. The consignment was insured with the first petitioner for covering the risk for damage, short supply, etc. 3. On August 7, 1987, the respondent issued a non-delivery certificate in respect of the goods entrusted to him. The second petitioner, on the basis of this certificate, registered a claim and received a sum of Rs. 4,931.04 towards full settlement of the claim and executed a special power of attorney and a letter of subrogation. On the strength of these documents,...
Tag this Judgment!Kurkunta and Seram Stones (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: [1992]87STC105(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The dealer has filed this revision petition. He is registered both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the State Act', for short) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('the Central Act', for short). The petitioner is involved in quarrying 'Shahabad stones' and selling the same thereafter. The question raised by the petitioner arises under the Central Act. The assessee claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 45,610 towards loading charges on the ground that the said expenses were incurred before the delivery of stones to the common carrier. The assessing authority rejected the claim for exemption holding that it was a pre-sale expense and therefore, formed part of the sale price. This order was affirmed by the first appellate authority as well as by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13, and held that 'the freight and handling charges ...
Tag this Judgment!Lt. Cdr. M.C. Kendall Vs. S. Chandrasekhar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4142; 1992(1)KarLJ604
N.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 13-8-1981 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore in O.S.No. 61/1980.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:Plaintiff filed a suit at O.S.No. 61/1980 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District praying for a decree for specific performance of the agreement said to have taken place between him and defendant-1 on 21-1-1980 in respect of Sy.Nos. 23, 24, 26 and 27/2 of Gottigere Village, Bangalore District. In short the case of the plaintiff is as under: An Agreement of Sale of the aforesaid Sy.Nos. was entered into on 21-1-1980 between the plaintiff and defendant-1. The sale price was fixed at Rs. 1,46,000/-. It was agreed that on the said date that plaintiff should pay Rs. 39,000/- to defendant-1 and defendant-1 should deliver possession of the aforesaid lands to the plaintiff on 23-1-1980. It was also agreed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Late D.K. Aswathanarayana Setty Vs. M. Ramnathappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4519; 1991(3)KarLJ34
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 27th June 1989 passed by the learned District Judge in Revision Petition No. 64/1987 confirming the order dated 4-8-1987 passed by the learned Munsiff, Davangere in H.R.C. No. 6/1983 allowing I.A. No. VII filed by respondents 2 to 4 for impleading.2. The first respondent-M. Ramnathappa has filed H.R.C. No. 6/1983 for eviction of the petitioners herein on the ground falling under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case pleaded by Sri Ramnathappa is that the schedule premises in a partition has fallen to the share of respondents 2 to 4; that it is required for their bonafide use and occupation for carrying on a business by them. The petition was filed in the year 1983. According to the case of the petitioners/tenants, Sri Ramnathappa had no concern with the schedule property and he was not the landlord and that the partition had taken place ...
Tag this Judgment!Afsar Khan Vs. State by Girinagar Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1676; ILR1992KAR2894
ORDER1. This application is through Jail moved for bail granted by the Sessions Judge. 2. The point for consideration is that application is whether the learned Sessions Judge while releasing the petitioner on bail by exercising power under S. 439, Cr.P.C. was right in insisting that the petitioner shall apart from executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with other conditions shall also deposit a case surety of Rs. 750/- in each case. 3. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner by the Girinagar Police, Bangalore in C.C. Nos. 619, 713, 716, 717, 718, 994 and 996 of 1988 and 2145 and 2146 of 1990 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offence punishable under S. 379, I.P.C. in all the cases. 4. The petitioner was in judicial custody. He moved for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore under S. 439, Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge found the petitioner as entitled for bail and rightly ordered for his bail. However, he ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabaleshwar Subraya Hegde Vs. Narayana Subraya Hegde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR270; 1991(4)KarLJ48
ORDERHiremath, J.1. This application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is filed in the following circumstances.2. The appellant/applicant challenged the decree of the first Appellate Court in R.A. No. 22/1987 on certain substantial questions of law formulated by him in the appeal memo as required. The defendant in the Original Suit is the appellant and he suffered a decree in the trial Court for declaration of title of the plaintiff/respondent to the suit property and for delivery of vacant possession of the area under dispute. The parties are said to be brothers. The first Appellate Court confirmed the decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 15-4-1991, the learned Single Judge made the following Order:'None appears for the appellant. This matter was heard on 8-2-1991 and notice directed to the other side. The respondent/ plaintiff has appeared through Counsel who is present in Court today.I have satisfied myself that no injustice is caused by dismissing this...
Tag this Judgment!Devaraj Dhanram Vs. Firebricks and Potteries Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: [1994]79CompCas722(Kar); 1991(4)KarLJ148
Kedambadi Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This company application is filed by the respondents seeking an order as follows : This hon'ble court may be pleased to permit the respondents to give effect to the resolution dated August 3, 1989, passed at the extraordinary general meeting held on August 3, 1989, minutes whereof has been filed along with the statement of objections as annexure R-23 to the company petition. 2. In the application the respondents have averred that the petitioner in the company petition filed an Application No. 868 of 1989, praying for grant of temporary injunction to restrain them from holding the extra-ordinary general meeting on August 3, 1989. This court passed an order dated August 1, 1989, which reads as follows : 'The respondents may hold the general meeting, any resolution passed thereat shall not be given effect to or acted upon until this court otherwise directs. It is also clarified, that by the holding of the general meeting and the passing of the resolution...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shankaranarayana Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: [1992]198ITR373(KAR); [1992]198ITR373(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred to us under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who allowed deduction of municipal tax of Rs. 93,266 pertaining to earlier years on the ground that the demand was raised during the year 1981-82 ?' 2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1981-82. In other words, during the accounting year ending on March 31, 1981, the assessee had claimed deduction of municipal taxes aggregating to over Rs. 5,00,000 out of which a sum of Rs. 93,266 related to earlier years. According to the assessee, the amount pertaining to the earlier years was demanded only during the present accounting year in question and the assessee paid the same during the said accounting year. This claim of the assessee was negatived by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the liabili...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Behroze Ramyar Batha Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3556; 1992(1)KarLJ589
S. Mohan, C.J.1. All these four Appeals can be dealt with under a common Judgment. They arise out of the Judgment of Justice Murlidher Rao dated 20-7-1987 in W.Ps.10881 & 82/87 and 10895 & 86/87.2. What are challenged in these Appeals are land acquisition proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Central Act No. 1 of 1894), (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. We will now proceed to state the facts:Lands involved in these four appeals respectively are: Sy.No. 139. of Kodihalli measuring 1 acre, Sy.No. 17 of Challaghatta measuring 2 acres 38 guntas + 38. guntas PK, Sy.No.140 of Kodihalli measuring 3 acres, and Sy.No. 144 of Kodihalli measuring 1 acre 1 guntas + 1 guntas PK.Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act (Preliminary Notification) was made on 29-12-1981. That was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 7-1-1982. The preamble of the Notification requires to be extracted because that evidences the public purpose, and it reads:'Where it appears to the Special De...
Tag this Judgment!Earappa and Others Vs. Nanjappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant287; ILR1992KAR905; 1991(3)KarLJ700
1. The plaintiffs in the original suit are the appellants in (his appeal. They and the respondent were members of a joint family tracing its origin to one Earappa. They are from different branches. There was partition among all these members of the joint family on 2-6-1959 under a registered partition deed. By that time S. Nos. 222 and 117/9 of Yelvara village were acquired by the Central Government for the formation of an aerodrome. It also appears the compensation to be paid for this acquisition was not determined at the time of partition. However, later under the award in AC 38/64-65 Rs. 8233.30 p. was the compensation amount determined and to be paid to those interested in the land acquired. It is not in dispute that 10 guntas of land in all was acquired. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 6174-96 p. out of this compensation amount contending that 1/8th out of the said amount should go to plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 1/4th to plaintiffs 3 and 4 and defendant each as agreed at the time of partiti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »