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.
H.S. Sadashiva Vs. M.S. Muthappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2424; 1992(2)KarLJ81
Shyamsundar, J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common order passed by the JMFC, Somwarpet, in C.C. No. 701/88 and two other connected cases in which the accused was a Co-operative Society called the Igoor Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha, Niyamitha represented by the President Sri Muthappa and Secretary Sri. Ramesh who were accused Nos. 1 and 3 along with Igoor VSSSN arraigned accused No. 2. They are currently the respondents in these appeals arising from an order of acquittal recorded by the learned JMFC at a prosecution launched against them by the Provident Fund Commissioner alleging default in filling of returns with the Provident Fund Commissioner touching the matter of collection of Provident Fund dues as enjoined by the Provident Fund Act.2. That in prosecutions under the Provident Fund Act touching any deviation or omission or commissions by any individual or institution covered by that Act had necessarily to start with the sanction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner...
Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. N.R. Pawar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR584; 1992(2)KarLJ14
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. We are inclined to agree with the learned single Judge that electric supply cannot be cut off without giving an opportunity to the consumer to establish that he has not committed any theft thereof. We do not express any definite conclusion, however, because, apart from that, there is reason not to entertain this appeal.2. The relevant regulation is Regulation 44.07 of the Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulations 1988. Clauses (a) & (c) thereof are relevant. Under Clause (a). It is the 'authorised officer of the Board' who is empowered to estimate the value of the electricity that has been obstructed, used wasted or diverted. On the other hand, in Clause (c) it is the 'Board' in whose favour the right to disconnect the consumer's installation forthwith and without notice is given. The 'Board' is defined by Regulation 2.02 to mean:'The Karnataka Electricity Board constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948.However, where the context so provides,...
Wing Commander A.S. Krishna Murthy Vs. Madhukar A. Shah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1987; 1992(3)KarLJ1
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Appeal by the 2nd defendant is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11-4-1991 passed by the learned XIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S.No.860/1987.1.1. The Appeal lies in a narrow compass. The respondents are notified and are represented through a Counsel. The Appeal is admitted. Production of Paper Books is dispensed with. The Appeal is heard for final disposal.2. The respondents are the plaintiffs. They filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,394/- from the appellant-2nd defendant and also from the 1st defendant. In this Appeal, the 1st defendant has not been impleaded as a party respondent. The 1st defendant was not other than the wife of the appellant. She has now been divorced with effect from 13-2-1987 by the appellant. The City Civil Court, Bangalore, has granted a decree for divorce.3. The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid amount on the ground that they are the landlords of the house bearing No. 25/1, situat...
Munisettappa and Others Vs. Krishnappa and Anothers
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Kant375; ILR1992KAR1174; 1992(2)KarLJ189
1. The appellants are the wife and sons of the deceased-plaintiff in O.S. 502/81 on the the of XII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, and being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application filed by them to be brought on record in the place of the deceased-plaintiff and the further order that the suit stood abated, have preferred this appeal.2. To understand the point in controversy only a few facts need be staled. The deceased-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of the oral agreement dt. 16-5-1968 to reconvey the suit properly for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The case put forward by him is that the suit properly belonged to him absolutely, the same having come to his share in a partition between him and one Krishnappa and he got constructed a house on the said site and as he was in need of Rs. 5,000/-to complete the plastering, etc. in respect of the said construction, he raised loan of Rs. 5,000/- from the 1st defendant and on his insistence he executed a nominal sal...
M.D. Muthu and ors. Vs. Rev. D.P. Shettian
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1992
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3066
ORDERK.B. Navadgi, J.1. The proceedings in this matter have been initiated and commenced on the Contempt Petition filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).2. On 25.8.1988, a Division Bench of this Court took cognizance of the matter and commenced the proceedings by directing issue of Show Cause Notice to the respondent, making the same returnable by 19.9.1988. In response to the Show Cause Notice, the respondent has entered appearance and filed his counter.3. Along with the Contempt Petition ('the Petition' for short), the complainants have produced the affidavit of complainant No. 1; the certified copy of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 84/75(Dt. Council of UBMC v. S.N. MATHIAS, ILR 1989 KAR 587) as Annexure-'A'; the copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 355/87 instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, as Annexu...
Muniyamma and Others Vs. Arathi Cine Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: [1993]77CompCas97(Kar); ILR1992KAR1262; 1992(2)KarLJ614
K.A. Swamy, J.1. These two appeals are preferred under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, read with section 155(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, against the common order dated October 8, 1990, passed in Company petition No. 62 of 1988 connected with Company Petition No. 48 of 1987. Of course, against the order rejecting Company Petition No. 48 of 1987, O.S.A. 17 of 1990 has been preferred by the petitioners therein, who are also the petitioners in Company Petition No. 62 of 1988. O.S.A. No. 17 of 1990 has also been posted for hearing along with O.S.A. Nos. 16 of 1990 and 19 of 1990. The result of O.S.A. No. 17 of 1990 depends upon the decision in O.S.A. Nos. 16 and 19 of 1990. However, this order will not cover O.S.A. No. 17 of 1990 arising out of Company Petition No. 48 of 1987. 2. The petitioners in Company Petition No. 62 of 1988 are the appellants in O.S.A. No. 16 of 1990. O.S.A. No. 19 of 1990 is filed by respondent No. 2 in Company Petition No. 62 of 1988. 3. There ar...
M/S Graphite India Ltd. Vs. E.S.i. Corpn.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: (1992)IILLJ125Kant
Venkatachala, J. 1. Scope ambit of sub-clause (c) of clause (22) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), arise for our consideration and decision in this appeal. 2. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') by its order dated April 18, 1990 made under Section 45-A of the Act, determined the contribution payable by M/s. Graphite India Ltd., the principal employer, towards its 14 employees employed in its factory between April 1988 and September 1988, at Rs. 10,805-15 and demanded payment of that amount. The principal employer made an application under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bangalore (for short' the Court') questioning its liability to pay the contribution to the Corporation as determined in the said order in respect of its 14 employees. The contention advanced by the principal employer to pay contribution to the Corporation as determined in the said order in respect of its 1...
Management of Graphite India Ltd. Vs. E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR712; (1992)IILLJ125Kant
Venkatachala, J.1. Scope and ambit of Sub-clause (c) of Clause (22) of Section 2 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), arise for our consideration and Decision in this Appeal.2. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'), by its order dated 18-4-1990 made under Section 45-A of the Act, determined the contribution payable by M/s Graphite India Ltd., the principal employer, towards its 14 employees employed in its factory between April 1988 and September 1988, at Rs. 10,805-15 and demanded payment of that amount. The principal employer made an application under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bangalore (for short 'the Court') questioning its liability to pay the contribution to the Corporation as determined in the said order in respect of its 14 employees. The contention advanced by the principal employer to pay contribution respecting its 14 employees was based on its view that a sum of Rs. 10/- ...
Gangadharan Vs. Jagadguru Gangadhar Swamigalu Gurugalad Swamigalu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR579; 1992(2)KarLJ33
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. By the Judgment and Order under appeal, the learned Single Judge made the Writ Petition filed by the 4th respondent to the Appeal absolute in these terms:'Accordingly, the order of allotment dated 24-6-69 passed by the Rent Controller for HDMC Area, Dharwar in No. RMT.SR.1371 (Annexure-A) and the order of ejectment dated 28-3-1981 passed by him in No. RNT.SR.138/78-79 (Annexure-K) are quashed. Respondent No. 1 R. Gangadharan is directed to deliver vacant possession of the premises in question to the petitioner forthwith. Respondent No. 1 shall pay the costs of the petitioner and bear his own. Advocate's fee Rs.200/-.'2. The facts are somewhat complex and need to be stated in detail. We are concerned with house bearing C.T.S.No. 2677, Municipal No. 2715/1, HDMC No. 74/1, measuring 45 sq.yards of Ward No. 1 of Hubli Town and also of the open site bearing CT.S.No. 2675/41, measuring 972 sq.yards of Ward No. 1 of Hubli Town. The latter adjoins the former. Prior to 196...
Abdul Jaleel and Others Vs. Smt. Aishabi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Kant380; ILR1992KAR1156; 1992(2)KarLJ277
ORDER1. These revision petitions are filed against the common order dated 11-3-1987 made in O.S. 172 of 1986 by the Civil Judge, Gulbarga on I.As. 2 and 3, allowing the application of the respondents for impleading them as party-defendants to the suit.2. Brief facts of the case are these :The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the trial Court. They filed a suit for specific performance of the contract to sell against respon-dcnt-1, who is defendant No. I in the trial Court. The 1st respondent executed an agreement to sell and that was sought to be enforced in O.S. 172 of 1986 before the trial Court. In fact, the 1st respondent has consented for a decree though there was a contest in the initial stage. At that stage respondents filed applications I. As. 2 and 3 under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. claiming title to the property in question. In the said applications it is stated by the respondents that they are Chairman and Muthavalli of the District Wakf Committee, Gulbarga, and they should be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »