Karnataka Court February 1992 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lachha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ97; ILR1992KAR2383; 1992(3)KarLJ7
Rama Jois, J1. In these two Appeals preferred against the judgment and award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, on a claim petition presented under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), one by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the allowing of the claim petition and another by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation, the following questions of law arise for consideration:(1) As the accident which gave rise to the cause of action for presenting the claim petition, had occurred on 3-4-1988 prior to the date of coming into force of the Motor Vehicles 1988 Act ('the 1988 Act' for short) on 1-7-1989, whether after that date the petitioner could file the claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the 1939 Act' for short) which was in force on the date of the accident and consequently the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to condone the delay of more than six months in presenting the claim petition exerc...
Tag this Judgment!First Income-tax Officer Vs. Aruna and Company
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: [1992]196ITR832(KAR); [1992]196ITR832(Karn)
1. It appears to us that the judgment under appeal cannot be interfered with since it has correctly applied the Board's circular. 2. Rejected. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ennar Refineries Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-cum-en ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2779
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved by a clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes stating that the groundnut oil brought into a local area for refining is taxable under entry 16B up to March 31, 1987, has approached this Court. Pursuant to this clarification, in the course of the assessment, a pre-assessment notice is issued to the petitioner relying upon the aforesaid clarification. 2. Though normally this Court could not have interfered with a pre-assessment notice issued, but relegated the parties to work out their remedies as provided under the statute inasmuch as the assessing authority is bound by the circular issued by the Commissioner, it becomes necessary to examine the validity of the circular. 3. The stand of the authorities that conversion of raw groundnut oil into refined groundnut oil involves the process of manufacture as contemplated under entry 16B of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas, for Consumption, Use or Sal...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnaswamy Vs. Profulla
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2294
K.A. Swami, J1. This Appeal by the defendant is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 1990 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mysore in O.S.No. 335/1985.2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit on 8.10.1985 for the following reliefs:-'i) That the suit be decreed directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in question in favour of plaintiff in respect of property in the schedule below on accepting the contract purchase money (as per the agreement) less the amounts paid already in addition to earnest money.ii) That the defendant be directed to execute and register the sale deed within the time specified by the Court, the said deed be executed and registered according to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 10(5) and 6 (a) of C.P.C.iii) Grant costs of the suit together with such other appropriate reliefs deemed fit to be granted under the circumstances of the case.' The suit schedule properly is as follows:-'House property bearing D.No. F.74/...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raja Naika and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ521; [1993]77CompCas219(Kar); [1992(65)FLR97]; ILR1992KAR1325; 1992(2)KarLJ672
N. Venkatachala, J.1. Whether this appeal of the insurer filed under section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against an award made by the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by which it is made liable to pay compensation for death or bodily injury of a person on the basis of a certificate of insurance issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is maintainable if it is not founded on a ground by which an insurer was entitled to defend, under sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, an action for compensation, being an important question arising for our consideration in deciding this appeal, we shall proceed to consider the same. 2. The appellant-insurer had issued the certificate of insurance under sub-section (3) of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act in favour of the second respondent-insured, the employer, covering his liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act for death or bodily injury of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. Narang Plastics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR974; 1992(2)KarLJ265
Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is by respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition and prayed for the following reliefs;(a) Call for the records from the respondents which ultimately resulted in issuing the communication Annexure-A. (b) Declare that the Section 5 of the Karnataka Electricity Board, Recovery of Dues, Act, 1976 as illegal and void in law. (c) Declare the Regulation No. 41(e)(1) of the Regulations of the Karnataka Electricity Board to the extent it directs the consumer to deposit the amount demanded in the bill before filing an appeal as illegal and void in law. (d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the - Annexure-A dated 26-12-1988 made in No. N4/AEE/ AAO/4540 by the 2nd respondent. (e) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case including the cost of this writ petition. 2...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Basangoudar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)IIILLJ799Kant
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. The first respondent in the Appeal was employed by the appellant, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, as a conductor. It was alleged that he has committed certain acts of misconduct. A domestic enquiry was held. The findings thereon resulted in his dismissal from the appellant's service. He thereupon raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to the Labour Court, Hubli, (2nd respondent) for adjudication. The appellant filed before the Labour Court an objection statement which justified the order of the dismissal that was passed. The 2nd respondent held on 30th April. 1988 the domestic enquiry to be unfair and improper. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments. It was adjourned on five occasions. The arguments of the learned Advocate for the 1st respondent were heard. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application to be permitted to file additional objections as under:'that if this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.R.T.C Vs. Basangoudar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR842
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. The first respondent in the Appeal was employed by the appellant, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, as a conductor. It was alleged that he had committed certain acts of misconduct. A domestic enquiry was held. The findings thereon resulted in his dismissal from the appellant's service. He thereupon raised an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to the Labour Court, Hubli, (2nd respondent) for adjudication. The appellant filed before the Labour Court an objection statement which justified the order of the dismissal that was passed. The 2nd respondent held on 30th April 1988 the domestic enquiry to be unfair and improper. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments. It was adjourned on five occasions. The arguments of the earned Advocate for the 1st respondent were heard. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application to be permitted to fife additional objections as under:'that if this Court ho...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Suresh I. Kurbetti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1992
Reported in: [1994]206ITR75(KAR); [1994]206ITR75(Karn)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. Mr. Raghavendra Rao fairly stated that the issue here is covered against the Revenue by reason of this court's judgment reported in D. C. Shah v. CGT : [1982]134ITR492(KAR) and that the reference case may be disposed of accordingly without any further requirement. The question is answered accordingly, in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramu Vs. C.H. Ramakrishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1894; 1992(2)KarLJ425
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The landlord of the premises in question is the Revision Petitioner; his petition under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, ('the Act' for. short) seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of landlord's requirement to' occupy his own premises was dismissed by the trial Court. According to the petitioner he has been residing in a rented premises and that his landlord has been pressing him to vacate the house occupied by the petitioner as a tenant. Petitioner was paying a rent of Rs. 2,250/- per month, to his landlord; the rent received by the petitioner from the respondent is also the same amount. The schedule premises is in the 2nd floor of the building owned by the petitioner. The ground floor and first floor are tenanted by another tenant who runs a hotel by name 'Hotel Guruprakash'; the 3rd floor has 14 rooms let out to school students. 'Hotel Guruprakash' pays a rent of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. The ground floor and the first floor ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »