Karnataka Court February 1992 Judgments
Bapuji Education Society Vs. Educational Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR999; 1992(4)KarLJ676
ORDERVasantha Kumar, J.1. These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of an order dated 18-11-1988 passed by the Court of the District Judge & Educational Appellate Tribunal, Tumkur (hereinafter called as the 'Tribunal') wherein the Management of a Private Educational Institution styled as Bapuji Education Society and an employee by name Narasimha Murthy, who was an Assistant Master in the employment of Sumathi Jain School run under different Management have challenged the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal.2. Few facts are necessary for proper appreciation of contentions advanced, briefly to state are as follows:-Bapuji Education Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is running a school by name Bapuji High School at Tumkur district. One Rajanna was serving as Assistant Master in the aforesaid Bapuji High School. The subject matter of controversy relates to mutual transfer of the employees. It is seen from the records that on 17-8-1986, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tax Recovery Commissioner and Another Vs. K. Basavarajappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: [1992]197ITR398(KAR); [1992]197ITR398(Karn)
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. The parties in these writ appeals will be referred to as they were referred to in Writ Petition No. 12082 of 1988, throughout this judgment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to these writ appeals are the following : Y. S. Devendra Murthy, brother of petitioner No. 2, was a defaulter under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'); recovery proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a notice under rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Act (for short, 'the Rules'); the said notice in ITCP-I was served on him on September 3, 1973; subsequently, attachment in ITCP-16 was made on February 11, 1988; proclamation of sale was issued in ITCP-13; thereafter, the property was brought to sale by respondent No. 2 and, in the auction held on March 14, 1988, respondent No. 3 was the successful bidder. 3. Petitioner No. 1 entered into an agreement with Y. S. Devendra Murthy, the defaulter, on November 20, 1982, to purchase the lands in respect of which notice under...
Tag this Judgment!Sriramapura Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Shahar Banu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR838; 1992(2)KarLJ178
ORDERS.P. Bharucha C.J.1. This Contempt Petition arises upon the following facts: On 7th February 1991 the State Government passed an order appointing the respondent Special Officer of the Srirampuram Co-operative Bank Limited, Srirampuram, Bangalore for the period of one year with immediate effect. The Writ Petition was filed to impugn this order. On 25th February 1991 a learned single Judge of this Court passed an interim order in the Writ Petition which stated, 'Pending disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition........the operation of the order dated 7th February 1991 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in No. CMW-13-CLM-91 (Annexure-F to the WP) be and the same is hereby stayed.' As is admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the said stay order was received in the Tappal Section of her office in the evening of 25th February 1991 and it came to her knowledge on the afternoon of 26th February 1991. On 26th February 1991 the respondent suspended one Nagalingaiah, the Manag...
Tag this Judgment!Sharadamma Vs. Jayashree
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC452; ILR1992KAR2277
K.A. Swami, J1. This Appeal arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share in the suit schedule properties. The appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants is not in dispute. Plaintiff-1 is the second wife of late K.L.Srinivasan. Plaintiffs-2 to 6 are the children of first plaintiff and late K.L.Srinivasan. The defendants 1 to 4 are the children of late - K.L. Srinivasan through his first wife. The first plaintiff was married to K.L. Srinivasan after the death of his first wife. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule properties as described in Schedule-A and Schedule-B to the plaint are the properties of late K.L.Srinivasan. However, in the written statement, the defendants contended that apart from the properties described in suit schedule 'A' and 'B', the first plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 1,68,278.88 from the Central Bank of India, K.G.Road Branch, Bangal...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shanthamma and Others Vs. Smt. Kamalamma and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC251; 1993ACJ453; [1994]79CompCas86(Kar); [1992(65)FLR60]; ILR1992KAR1258; 1992(2)KarLJ642
N. Venkatachala, J.1. The short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the sum not exceeding 50% of the amount of compensation which could be recovered from the employer by way of penalty for default in paying that amount of compensation due under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act'), is the liability arising under the Act for which insurance coverage is compulsory under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, 'the M.V. Act'). 2. Material facts which have given rise to the said question are briefly these : Respondent No. 2, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has issued an insurance policy under section 95 of the M.V. Act, 1939, covering the liability for death or personal injury of the driver of the autorickshaw with registration No. CAM 1326 in favour of the owner of that autorickshaw, respondent No. 1, herein. While respondent No. 1 had employed one Kuppuswamy as a driver of that autorickshaw, there occurred an accid...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirathi Bai Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1731
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. This matter is taken up for final disposal itself having regard to the age of the proceedings.2. In the year 1983, certain complaints were lodged with the authorities stating that the premises in question has become vacant. On this the petitioner who is the owner of the premises was directed to report vacancy. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 9792/1984. This Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no final order. At the same time, a notification was issued for allotment of the premises on 24th April 1984 and the premises in question was allotted in favour of the 3rd respondent herein, on 25th August 1987. The petitioner challenged this order by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (the first respondent herein).3. According to the petitioner, the premises in question is not covered by Part-II of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, because it is a new construction and that Part-II is attracted on...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hanumantappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ1083; [1993]76CompCas411(Kar); ILR1992KAR1335; 1992(2)KarLJ183
Rama Jois, J.1. In these three appeals presented under section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the following two questions of low arise for consideration :- '(1) Whether the insurance company with which a tractor and a trailer propelled by the tractor are insured is liable to pay compensation in respect of death of or bodily injury to persons traveling in the trailer and (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what is the extent of liability of the insurance company ?' 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are these : On March 5, 1985, the tractor - trailer bearing Registration Nos. MEU 9801 and 9802 respectively were being used for the purpose of transporting country manure from Hottiganahally village to the land of respondent No. 1, After unloading the manure, when the tractor was on its way back to Hottiganahally, there was an accident. As result, three employees who were engaged as labourers for loading and unloading the manure and who were travelin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.M. Salgaocar and Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: [1992]198ITR738(KAR); [1992]198ITR738(Karn)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue. The following questions arise for determination : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in deleting addition of Rs. 5,21,241 made by the Income-tax Officer under section 40A(5) and sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that non-charging of interest on the debit balance in the running account of the directors would not constitute a perquisite ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company. The assessment year with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee had borrowed moneys and was paying interest thereon at the rate of fifteen per cent. per annum. The amount of the interest that was paid was claimed as deduction in the computation of the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Falcon Tyres Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC182; 1992(60)ELT116(Kar); ILR1992KAR829; 1992(2)KarLJ172
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. These write petitions have been referred for hearing to a Division Bench. They challenge the vires of Section 4(4)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. This challenge is not pressed in this Court in view of the decision of a Division Bench in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. and Others v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mangalore and Others [1986 (23) E.L.T. 48] read with the decision of a Full Bench in Union of India v. M/s. Alembic Glass Industries : 1992(61)ELT193(Kar) . 2. What remains to be considered in these writ petitions is a question upon which there is a divergence of opinion between various High Courts. 3. The first petitioner was served with notices dated 13th June, 1977 by the Superintendent of Central Excise under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, as it then read, to show case why the price lists submitted by it under Rule 173C(3) of the said Rules should not be revised and why it should not be required to pay excise du...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Nagaraj Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1240; 1992(3)KarLJ501
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. One batch of Writ Petitions, W.P. Nos. 12401 to 12403 of 1991, and another batch of Writ Petitions, W.P. Nos. 12348 to 12350 of 1991, have come up before this Division Bench for hearing because of an order dated 8-11-1991 made by a learned single Judge of this Court, which reads thus:'In the first batch of cases, the question raised is one relating to promotion of the petitioners and seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondent-2. There has been some previous litigations in this matter. In view of several orders passed by the learned single Judge and thereafter in Writ Appeal by the Division Bench, consideration or re-consideration of the same may arise. Hence, it would be appropriate that these cases should be referred to Division Bench.Though, in second batch of cases it is submitted that they are not connected with the first batch of cases which has been referred to Division Bench, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that they are ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »