Karnataka Court January 1992 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.
Mohanraj Vs. Violet Chandra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC5; ILR1992KAR846; 1992(2)KarLJ269
Venkatachala, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred under Section 39 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 13.9.1991 made by the Court of Civil Judge, K.G.F. (for short 'the Court below') dismissing the husband's petition for divorce filed against his wife under Section 27 of the Act. Husband is the appellant and wife is the respondent. They are Indian Christians whose marriage was solemnised under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (for short 'the Christian Marriage Act'), according to the Christian Rites in a Church at K.G.F. on 12.2.1982.2. Husband filed the petition under Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act in the Court below seeking a decree for divorce against his wife on the ground that she had deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of that petition -- a ground for divorce envisaged in Clause (b) of that sub-section. Maintainability of that petition for divorce under Sub...
Oriental General Insurance Co. Vs. Rukmini Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC106; 1993ACJ335; ILR1992KAR2189; 1992(2)KarLJ572
Rama Jois, J. 1. This Appeal is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself by consent of both the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This Appeal is by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore,3. The only ground urged by the Appellant-Insurance Company is that the claimant was a passenger and, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 15,000/- and even so, the Tribunal has fixed the liability to pay entire compensation of Rs. 28,000/-together with interest on the Insurance Company.4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are these:The stage carriage bearing Reg. No. MYA 5553 was plying from Magadi to Bangalore on 17-4-1985. The claimant and her mother were passengers in the said vehicle. There was an accident at about 7-30 p.m. After P.W. 1 Kali Bai, mother of the claimant, alighted from the bus a...
L. Eswar Vs. E. Raghupathi Naidu and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Kant403
ORDER1. These revision petitions are filed by the owner of the three premises in question against the rejection of his claim for evicting the tenants. All the three premises are non-residential and are part of a bigger property belonging to the petitioner. C.R.P. 1946/88 arises out of the proceeding in H.R.C. 2038/82. The subject-matter of the proceedings may be referred as premises No. 136. C.R.P. 1947/88 arises out of H.R.C. 2039/82 and its subject-matter is premises No. 134. C.R.P. 1948/88 arises out of H.R.C. 2036/82 and its subject-matter is premises No. 133. In premises No. 133 the tenant was carrying on the tailoring business. In premises No. 134 the business that is being carried on pertains to photo frames and in premises No. 136 the tenant has been carrying on the business of auto works i.e., repairing the scooters, etc. These premises are adjacent to premises Nos. 130 and 131. The petitioner along with members of his family is carrying on the business of running a lodging ho...
The State of Karnataka Vs. Shivappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3264; 1992(3)KarLJ49
Shyam Sunder, J. 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Gulbarga, in Special Case No. 9/1987, dated 26-12-88. By the said judgment, the learned Special Judge, acquitted one Shivappa, who was indicated before him on a charge of having committed an offence punishable under section 161 of the I.P.C. r/w. Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the same the State challenges the acquittal of the accused therein who is the respondent-accused before us represented by Sri A. B. Patil, and seeks a reversal of the same. 2. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor who appears in support of the appeal maintains that the learned Judge committed a serious volte face in completely derailing after having held that all evidence clearly establishes that the accused (we refer respondent as accused during the course of the judgment) accepted the money from complainant P.W. 1 on the date of occurrence and that was illegal g...
Karnataka Board of Wakfs Vs. Hazrath Attulla Shah Dhargah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR586; 1992(2)KarLJ36
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. These are. Appeals filed by Karnataka Board of Wakfs against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 15th December 1989 in several connected Writ Petitions, including Writ Petitions Nos. 5141 & 5142 of 1982 filed by the Board.2. This dispute relates to land ad-measuring 325 feet by 125 feet in R.S.Nos.1 and 2 of Annipura village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The land was Devadaya Inam Land that belonged to the Hazarath Attulla Shah Dargah. It is the case of second and third respondents to these Appeals that a number of alienations of the said land had taken place and it was not longer Inam land. The second respondent had purchased the said land from one Ghouse Bi under a registered Sale Deed dated 4th December 1946 and on 13th September 1947 a half portion of the said land had been sold by the second respondent to the third respondent for valuable consideration.3. On 28th July 1947 the Sajjada of the Dargah made a petition under Section 10...
M. Jayaram Vs. House Rent and Accommodation Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1915; 1992(2)KarLJ1
ORDERShivashankar Bhat. J. 1. This Writ Petition is by the owner of the premises. The building comprised of two premises, i.e., premises No. 41 and premises No. 42. Earlier premises No. 41 was under the occupation of the tenant by name Ramanandan and the premises No. 42 is under the occupation of the tenant by name M/s. Ameer Iron Mart. The owner of the premises sought eviction of Ramanandan in the year 1975 by filing an eviction petition on the ground that he required the premises for his own business purpose. The premises in question, i.e., premise? No 41 was suitable to be used as a godown. The eviction petition filed in the Trial Court was unsuccessful. However, in the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner landlord, as per C.R.P. 116/1981, he succeeded. C.R.P was allowed on 14.11.1983. The tenant was granted three years time by this Court to vacate the premises. This was further extended unto 30th June 1987 subsequently, vide Annexure-D.1 am told that the tenant Ramanandan chal...
Aruna and Co. Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1992
Reported in: [1992]196ITR831(KAR); [1992]196ITR831(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. For the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86, it had been granted registration. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer wrote a letter to the petitioner on April 4, 1988 stating that one Muthuswamy who is a partner of a firm is acting in a dual capacity, one as an individual and the other as a representative of the Hindu Undivided family which he represents. Inasmuch as partnership is a contract, there cannot be a contract with himself and therefore, the principle of consensus ad idem is affected and he was of the opinion that no genuine firm came into existence and proposed to cancel the registration from the assessment year 1983-84 onwards. Aggrieved by this action of the Assessing Officer, the petitioner has filed this petition.2. The central Board of Direct Taxes, while considering the question whether the matter decided by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Raghavji Anandji and Co. : [1975]100ITR246(Bom) in an identical situatio...
Ukay Pharma Vs. State Bank of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR892; 1992(2)KarLJ195
K.A. Swami, J. 1. Notice to respondents 2 and 3 is dispensed with.2. As this Appeal involves short question of law, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.3. For the purpose of deciding the point involved in the Appeal, the presence of the records is not necessary. Hence, we have heard this Appeal for final disposal.4. The appellant is the first defendant. The first respondent is the plaintiff. Respondents-2 and 3 are defendants 2 and 3. The appellant is the principal debtor. Defendants 2 and 3 are the mortgagors.5. The first respondent - plaintiff filed O.S.No.74/89 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sagar for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,10,257-90ps. by sale of mortgaged properties with interest at 16.5% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realisation.6. The first defendant filed a Memo on 11-3-89 consenting for passing a preliminary decree. Similarly defendants 2 and 3 also filed a Memo on 27-3-1991 consenting for passing a preliminary decree.7. However, the trial Court...
R. Kuppuraj Vs. Bharath Gold Mines Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR554; 1993(2)KarLJ322
ORDERVasanthakumar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 5-9-1991 passed in M.A.No. 29/1991 by the Court of the Civil Judge, K.G.F., which has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 7-6-1991 passed on I.A.-I by the Court of the Munsiff, K.G.F. in O.S.No. 746/1990. The petitioner-Employee is the plaintiff in O.S.747/1990 and has sought for a declaration that he was born on 27-10-1936 instead of the year 1930, the date found in the Service Records of the First Defendant's undertaking namely, Bharat Gold Mines Ltd (Govt. of India undertaking).2. The petitioner-plaintiff has also moved the Trial Court for an injunctive relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 restraining the defendant from superannuating him with effect from 1-1-1991 on the strength of the date of birth originally found in the service records. The Counsel on record have taken this Court to the entire pleadings, documents and orders passed by both the Courts while deciding the issue o...
A. Basavaraj and Another Vs. Kushal Chand and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Kant393; ILR1992KAR1401; 1992(2)KarLJ232
ORDERK. A. Swami, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiffs is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31-8-1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bellary, in 0. S. No. 33/1979. The respondents were the defendants in the trial court. The defendant-2died during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, his legal representatives viz., the widow and two daughters of defendant-2 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 2nd defendant.2. The appellants filed the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in the plaint 'A' Schedule properties. 'A' Schedule consisted of the following two items of properties:Properties situated in Bellary City within the sub-registration district of Bellary:1. Door No. XI (III), (IV), (V), Ward XI Flower Street, Bellary value Rs. 1,00,000/- 2. Door No. XX(A) to (F) in Ward XI, Flower Street, Brucepet, Bellary value Rs. 75,000/- 2.1 The case of the plaintiffs was that the 2nd defendant was their father; that the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »