Karnataka Court November 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.
Managing Director, Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR666; 1993(1)KarLJ338
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. The Point that arises for Consideration in this Revision Petition is that when once a reference is ordered under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the Act, before its commencement or pending proceedings before the arbitrator, powers under Section 41(b) of the Act be exercised by the Civil Court2. In order to answer this question, it is proper to narrate a few facts and relevant provisions and interpretation of law on the scope of Sections involved.3. Petitioners herein is a society known as The Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. entered into an agreement with respondent-plaintiff viz., K. Muniswamy Raju entrusting the work of construction of Multistoried Building-II in Cunningham Road for a sum of Rs. 1,51,90,453/- under the terms of agreement based on competitive tender. There was a formal agreement entered into on 4.10.84 signed by both the parties. After completing part construction work Muniswamy Raju p...
A.K. Subbaiah Vs. Karnataka Legislature Secretariat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1137; 1993(1)KarLJ638
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.8.1992 passed in Writ Petition No. 25617 of 1992. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition.2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the Notification dated 18th August 1992 bearing No.48 issued by the Secretary to Legislative Assembly, produced as Annexure-C stating that Sri R.V.Deshpande - respondent No. 3 has been recognised as the Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 18th August 1992.3. The petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Council. He has filed the Petition as a Public Interest Petition. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Petition on the ground that whether the total number of members of Janata Dal is 23 and whether the 3rd respondent could be recognised as the Leader of the Opposition or not, are the matters falling in the Jurisdiction and domain of the Speaker of the Assembly; that this Court cannot hold an enquiry as to ...
Mahendra Labs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3629
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 21st August 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 18617/1992 dismissing the Writ Petition. 2. In the Writ Petition, the appellant/petitioner sought for a declaration that the Rate Contracts for five items mentioned in the order in favour of respondents 4 and 5 are illegal and for other reliefs. The five items in respect of which rate contract was granted in favour of respondents 4 and 5 are as follows: (1) Sulphadiazine Tablets 500 mg, (2) Sulphamethoxazole and Trimethoprim Tablets. (3) Glybenclamide Tablets. (4) Amoxycillin caps., 250 mg., and (5) Salbutamol Syrup. Out of the aforesaid five items the appellant/petitioner has confined his Writ Petition to items 1 and 3 viz., Sulphadiazine tablets and Glybenclamide tablets. 3. The contention urged before the learned Single Judge and also before us is that the Expert Committee has not given any reasons for rejecting the samples submitted b...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandy Joseph and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1992
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC406; II(1994)ACC82
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is by the insurer challenging the correctness and the legality of the finding recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IX, Bangalore, in issue No. 4 in paragraph 13 of its judgment that the liability of the insurer cannot be limited to Rs. 50,000/- and that the entire amount of the compensation awarded has to be paid by the insurer.2. On 14th July, 1989 at about 7.30 p.m. while one Alex Joseph s/o respondents 1 and 2 was driving a two wheeler-scooter bearing No. CAR 4539 on Hosur Road, Bangalore, a motor car bearing No. 5727 came with a great speed and dashed against him resulting in bodily injuries. Subsequently, he died. Thereupon, the parents of the deceased approached the Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, with an application under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the death of their son.3. The Tribunal examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and m...
Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Associate Lumbers (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: 1993(41)ECC230; 1993(63)ELT605(Kar); ILR1992KAR3720; 1993(1)KarLJ39
K.A. Swami, Acting C.J. 1. At the stage of admission, the respondents are served and they are represented through their Counsel. As these appeals lie in a very narrow compass, the same are admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. The first batch of writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 15-6-1992 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 5074 to 5076, 4865 to 4872, 1314 & 1315, 7117 & 7318, 9490, 9491 of 1989; and W.Ps. 18360 & 18361 of 1987, and 12290 & 12291 of 1988. The second batch of writ appeals are preferred against the order dated 15-6-1992 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 13097 & 13098 of 1988. 3. The petitioners (respondents in these appeals) in the first batch of writ petitions referred to above, sought for a declaration that the goods imported by them under the various bills of entry produced in the respective writ petitions, were not exigible in view of the exemption granted by the Notification No. 160/88 dated 13-5-1988. They also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gowramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ1204; ILR1993KAR24
M. Ramakrishna, J. 1. We heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. In this Appeal presented by K.S.R.T.C., the only ground taken is that the award of interest at 9% p.a. on the interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was incorrect. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant places reliance upon the Decision of the Rajasthan High Court in DHAPA KANWAR AND ORS. v. KISHANLAL AND ANR., 1992 ACJ 163 In para 12 of the Judgment, learned Chief Justice observed as follows: 'Counsel for the appellants also made a prayer for payment of interest on the amount awarded as no fault compensation. There being no provision in the Act, no interest is awardable. The Tribunal has power only that which was conferred on it. It was not a Court acting while deciding a claim petition to which Code of Civil Procedure applied and interest could be awarded under Section 34 of the same. The legislature does not, to my mind, have any intention to award interest ...
Management of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. Mahaboob Beigh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3615; 1992(4)KarLJ644
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the order dated 8.7,1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No,3291/1985. In the Writ Petition, the 1st respondent herein has sought for quashing the award dated 30th April 1983 passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in Case No. A.I.D. No. 7 of 1979 produced as Annexure-C in the Writ Petition and also the order dated 30th November 1984 produced as Annexure-G passed by the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. 2. The aforesaid dispute came to be referred by the State Government by its order No. SWL 762 LLD 78 dated 10/11th September 1979. By the said order, the State Government referred 4 Points for determination as stated in para 1 of the award. In-addition to the Points referred by the State Government, the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, raised 4 additional issues. After considering the material on record, the Tribunal answered additional issues 1 to 3 in the affirmative and additional is...
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Nhw) Dharwad Vs. Kallangouda and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1992
Reported in: AIR1994Kant112; 1993(1)KarLJ33
ORDERShyamsundar, J.1. On a reference made by our brethern Shivashankar Bhat and R. Ramakrishna, JJ. under S. 7 of the High Courts Act we are now in seizen of the two questions formulated by the aforesaid Division Bench for consideration by a Full Bench. The Two questions are:1) Whether a claimant who has made a particular claim for the compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer is bound by the same when he seeks enhanced compensation under S. 18 of the Act and if not under what circumstances he is permitted to depart from the earlier claim?2) Whether the observations quoted above made in N.H. Kalburgi's case lays down the law correctly?The referral order gives an adequate insight to the controversy the resolution of which is sought for under the reference. While it is not necessary to advert in extenso to the origin and genesis of the controversy suffice it to note that the question arose as to whether a claimant under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ac...
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Nhw), Dharwad Vs. Kallangouda an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant197
ORDERShyamsundar, J. 1. On a reference made by our brethren Shivashankar Bhat and R. Ramakrishna, JJ. under S. 7 of the High Courts Act we are now in seize of the two questions formulated by the aforesaid Division Bench for consideration by a Full Bench. The Two questions are :1) Whether a claimant who has made a particular claim for the compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer is bound by the same when he seeks enhanced compensation under S. 18 of the Act and if not under what circumstances he is permitted to depart from the earlier claim? 2) Whether the observations quoted above made in R. H. Katburgi's case, : ILR1991KAR4242 ) lays down the law correctly? 2. The referral order gives an adequate insight to the controversy the resolution of which is sought for under the reference. While it is not necessary to advert in extenso to the origin and genesis of the controversy suffice itto note that the question arose as to whether a claimant under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinaf...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.K. Patil
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1992
Reported in: [1993]202ITR30(KAR); [1993]202ITR30(Karn); 1993(37)KarLJ158
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), the following question has been referred for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sale of printing machines had given rise to a long-term capital gain ?'2. The proceedings pertained to the assessment year 1979-80.3. The assessee had a printing press used for the publication of a newspaper. The printing press was imported from U. S. S. R. after obtaining appropriate licence from the Controller of Imports and Exports. The bill of lading was dated April 6, 1975, and the machine was installed in May, 1975. On April 4, 1978, the assessee entered into an agreement with M/s. Deccan News Printers (P.) Ltd. to sell some of the machinery and the said machines were handed over to the buyer on April 6, 1978. However, since these machines were imported, it was necessary to obtain the permission of the Registrar of Ne...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »