Karnataka Court January 1992 Judgments
Goutam and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2897; ILR1992KAR1772; 1992(2)KarLJ114
ORDER1. This petition is preferred with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in P.C. No. 41/89 (C.C. No. 1014/89 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (hereinafter referred to as 'JMFC'), I Court, Hubli. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are as under :2. The instant respondent 2, Parashuram, filed a complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C., before the JMFC, I Court, Hubli asserting that the instant petitioners have committed offences punishable under Ss. 323, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C.3. The learned JMFC, on the receipt of the complaint, passed an order dt. 11-8-1989 which reads as under :'Complainant present and filed complaint Under Section 200, Cr.P.C. Cognizance taken. Register the case and sent it to Gr. P.S.I. for investigation Under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. returnable by 1-9-89'.Thereafter, it is seen that, the Police Sub-Inspector, Hubli investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet before the JMFC. It is also seen that after the charg...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Poddar Vs. B. Leelavathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1757; 1992(2)KarLJ105
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The tenant of the residential premises is the first petitioner herein; the 2nd petitioner is the alleged sub-tenant. Parties, will be referred to hereinafter, with reference to their rankings in the trial Court.2. Petitioner landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 21 (1) (a), (f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). The claim under Clause (a) no more survives, as the landlady has not challenged the order of rejection under this ground. 3. According to the landlady, the residential premises was leased to the 1st respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,850/- and mat he had shifted to Bombay as a permanent resident and that he has inducted the 2nd respondent as a sub-tenant. The rents sent on a few occasions by the 2nd respondent were accepted by the landlady, only as paid on behalf of the 1st respondent. Landlady has 3 daughters, she has no male issue: the elder daughter has completed her MBBS and at the time of fi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Harijan Dharma and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2840; 1992(2)KarLJ85
Hiremath, J. 1. Both the appeals are by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order of Sessions Judge at Bellary, finding A1 guilty under S. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and extending the benefit of S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ('P.O. Act' for short). 2. Brief facts are that on the night of 23-8-1986 PW 1 Anjaneyalu and the deceased G. P. Hugar who were working as constables in the Railway Protection Force ('RPF' for short) were on duty at Bellary Railway Yard. When both of the them were walking in the Railway Yard, two persons carrying railway sleepers were sighted by them. The deceased identified both of them as Dharma and Sidda - the present accused persons. They alerted another RPF constable Kamble who was on duty. On hearing the shouts from these constables, both the accused persons threw the sleepers and ran away, PW 1 and the deceased chased them from behind whereas Kamble came from the other side. Both the accused were then foun...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Snam Abrasives Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1992
Reported in: [1994]205ITR554(KAR); [1994]205ITR554(Karn)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue relating to the assessment year 1982-83. 2. The question that we are required to answer reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Income-tax Officer not to deduct the value of the Central subsidy received from the Central Government from the cost of the assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation ?' 3. Learned counsel are agreed that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in the light of this court's judgment in CIT v. Diamond Dies . : [1988]172ITR655(KAR) . The question is so answered. ...
Tag this Judgment!international Coach Builders Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. Karnataka State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1992
Reported in: [1993]76CompCas119(Kar); ILR1992KAR2207; 1993(2)KarLJ367
N. Venkatachala, J.1. This original side appeal filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), read with Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is that of the International Coach Builders Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') in liquidation represented by the official liquidator attached to this court, which seeks the setting aside of the company court's order dated October 8, 1991, made on Company Application No. 218 of 1991, in Company Petition No. 131 of 1988, by which the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, a secured creditor of the company, is permitted to stand outside the liquidation proceeding and work out its remedies under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, subject to payment of the workmen's dues as undertaken.2. As the contentions raised before us in support of the appeal require their examination with reference to the facts which led the company court to make the order under appeal, i...
Tag this Judgment!Sikka-n-sikka Engineers Private Ltd. Vs. Cargo Transports
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1421; 1992(2)KarLJ196
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Appeal by the defendant is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26-2-1990 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 783/85, The respondent is the plaintiff.2. The respondent filed the aforesaid suit on 8-3-1985 for recovery of a sum of Rs. one lakh. It also prayed for an enquiry into the true and proper account of the defendant's liability including the balance due, the damages for breach of contract, interest for nonpayment of dues and for a sum in excess of Rs. one lakh to be decided by such enquiry.3. The suit claim was made on the ground that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to transport 100 Penstock Pipes of the defendant from its factory to the project site of the Kerala State Electricity Board viz., Edamalayar; that according to the terms of the contract, it had transported 48 penstock pipes; it also had to bring back certain steel plates in the return trip; that as per the terms of the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Employees of National Textile Corporation (Apkk and M) Ltd. Vs. Region ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: 1992(65)ELT816(Kar); 1992(2)KarLJ273; (1999)IIILLJ395Kant
1. Having regard to the nature of the points arising for our decision in this appeal, we heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties on the merits of this appeal and are proceeding to decide the appeal at the stage of admission itself.2. This is an appeal filed by the Employees' Union of the employees employed in the Office of the National Textile Corporation (APKK & M) Limited, Bangalore (for short 'the Employees' Union), under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the ESI Act'), against the order dated January 6, 1991 made by the Employees' State Insurance Court (for short 'the Insurance Court') rejecting their ESI Application No. 3/1985 in which they had sought for a declaration that no contribution was liable to be paid to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the ESI Corporation') under the ESI Act for the employees employed in the Office of the National Textile Corporation (APKK & M) Ltd., at Bangalore (for short 'the ...
Tag this Judgment!Employees of National Textile Corporation (Apkkandm) Ltd. Vs. Regional ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR852
Venkatachala, J. 1. Having regard to the nature of the points arising for our decision in this Appeal, we heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties on the merits of this Appeal and are proceeding to decide the Appeal at the stage of admission itself.2. This is an Appeal filed by the Employees' Union of the employees employed in the Office of the National Textile Corporation (APKK & M) Limited, Bangalore (for short 'the Employees Union'), under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the ESI Act'), against the order dated 6.1.1991 made by the Employees' State Insurance Court (for short 'the Insurance Court') rejecting their ESI Application No. 3/1985 in which they had sought for a declaration that no contribution was liable to be paid to the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the ESI Corporation') under the ESI Act for the employees employed in the office of the National Textile Corporation (APKK & M) Ltd., at Bangalore [for s...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Ganpat Aundkar Vs. Anant Hari Gaurav
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1751; 1992(2)KarLJ93
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. W.P.No. 7571 of 1987 has become this Revision Petition. Petitioneris the tenant residing in the premises in question. Present proceedingswere commenced in the year 1976 by the respondent seeking eviction ofthe tenant under Section 21 (1)(a), (h), (j) and (k) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1971 ('the Act', for short). Premises is in Chikodi town;monthly rent is Rs. 13/-. It is unnecessary to refer to the claim under otherclauses, except the one made under Clauses (j) and (k) because the trialCourt rejected the claim of the landlord under those clauses and directedeviction under Clauses (j) and (k) ofSection21 (1) of the Act. Landlord didnot challenge this finding. Tenant filed the Revision Petition underSection 50, which was dismissed by the District Court. Hence thepresent Revision Petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. by the tenant. 2. The order of the District Court is basically under Section 21 (1)(j); it ordered:'The revision petition is dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Karibasappa Sivalingappa Nalawadad Vs. Tirukappa Nagappa Sortur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2916; 1992(2)KarLJ574
Mirdhe, J. 1. This is a defendant's Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 10-10-1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Gadag, in R.A.No. 64 of 1979 confirming the judgment and decree dated 7-7-1979 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Gadag, in O.S.No. 215 of 1974.2. The respondent filed the suit against the appellant for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from disturbing the possession of the respondent of R.S.No. 77/1 B+2 measuring 10 acres 20 guntas situate at Dombal Village in Dharwar District. The suit of the respondent was decreed by the Principal Munsiff, Gadag. The appellant challenged that decree and judgment in R.A.No. 64 of 1979 and the lower Appellate Court also dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Thereafter, this Appeal is filed.3. This Appeal has been admitted for consideration of the following substantial question of law;'Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »