Karnataka Court February 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.
Ammilal Keshavaji Vs. Tulasi Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1712
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. This Revision Petition is by the tenant of the non-residential premises. The Respondent-land lord filed an eviction petition before the trial Court under Clauses (f) and (h) of Section 21 (1)of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (shortly called 'the Act') seeking eviction of the tenant (petitioner before this Court) on the ground that the schedule premises has been unlawfully sublet by the tenant and further the landlord required the premises for the business of her husband.2. In the eviction petition it was stated that the schedule premises is a part of a bigger building known as 'Ananda Bhavan Building'. It is situated in a commercial locality. The locality is quite convenient for the wholesale business in cloth and in fact, there is no other locality in Bangalore wherein wholesale business in cloth can survive. The landlady's husband Mohanlal at present has been carrying on wholesale business in cloth along with his brother Anandamal in the 1st floor ...
Gopala Iyengar Vs. Byla Hanumanthaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1150; 1992(2)KarLJ248
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order rejecting his application for amendment of the pleading. The Revision Petition is presented under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (' CPC' for short).2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that because this is an interlocutory Order made in the exercise of a jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the pleading, it is revisable under Section 115, Even otherwise, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Revision under Section 50 is not maintainable in view of the Decision of this Court in ANNAIAH v. M. VEERABHADRAPPA, 1979(1) KLJ 427. In the said Decision, JusticePuttaswamy observed that an order which was interlocutory cannot be construed as order falling under the said term under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and a Revision Petition against the said order was not maintainable. That was a matter where, in the course of cross examination of the landlord,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Buildmet Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR160(KAR); [1993]200ITR160(Karn)
1. Two questions, relating to the assessment year 1983-84, are required to be considered. They read thus : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee (company) which is doing the execution of civil engineering and structural work on contract basis, is an industrial undertaking entitled to investment allowance under section 32A 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee (company) is an industrial undertaking entitled to the deduction under section 80J ?' 2. The first question, it is agreed, has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in view of the judgment of this court in Shankar Construction Co. v. CIT : [1991]189ITR463(KAR) . The question is so answered. 3. Having regard to the answer to the first question, the second question has also to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Kharkhane
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR130(KAR); [1993]200ITR130(Karn)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. The only question to be considered in this reference relating to the assessment year 1982-83 reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amount which was credited to the molasses storage fund and spirit storage fund as part of the statutory obligation cast on the assessee came from out of the sale proceeds of molasses and ethyl alcohol effected in the accounting year under consideration and they should not be taken as income of the assessee in the relevant assessment year ?' 2. Counsel are agreed that in view of this court's judgment dated September 11, 1991, in CIT v. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. : [1992]198ITR690(KAR) (I.T.R.C. No. 46 of 1990), the question has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. It is so answered. ...
V.P. Shivanna Vs. Smt. Bhadramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ418; I(1992)DMC585; ILR1992KAR1183; 1992(2)KarLJ291
ORDER1. The petitioner in this case has challenged the proceedings in C. Misc. No. 3/87 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC for short), Nelamangala and praying for quashing the same. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated are as under : 2. Petitioner Shivanna is the husband of respondent Bhadramma. In C. Misc. No. 5/85, the JMFC, Nelamangala, by his order dated 23-9-1986 directed the instant petitioner to pay maintenance to Smt. Bhadramma at the rate of Rs. 75/- p.m. and an amount of Rs. 150/- p.m. to the child born out of Bhadramma. Since the amount was not paid by the instant petitioner as ordered by the learned JMFC, respondent Bhadramma filed an application before the JMFC under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. for the recovery of the amount. The learned JMFC, by his order dated 23-3-1988, directed the issue of salary attachment warrant against the instant petitioner. Aggrieved by this order passed by the JMFC, the instant petitioner has approached ...
Udayakumar Vs. Chairman, Cauvery Grameena Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR863
Venkatachala, J. 1. Cauvery Grameena Bank and its Area Managers/Senior Managers have presented these Writ Appeals feeling aggrieved by the common Order dated 10th April 1991 made in Writ Petition Nos. 5445/88, 11488/87, 3581 and 3582/88, 4191 and 4192/88 and 19995 /86 by a learned single Judge of this Court (N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.) quashing their appointments as Area Managers/Senior Managers made by promotional order dated 31.7.1986 of Cauvery Grameena Bank.2. As common points arise in these Appeals for our consideration and Decision, we shall dispose them of by a common Judgment.3. Undisputed antecedent facts, which are necessary for a proper consideration and disposal of these Appeals, are these:In the year 1977, Cauvery Grameena Bank with its Head Office at Mysore, came to be established under Section 3(1) of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Persons, who were appointed as Officers in that Bank from the year 1977 and whose appointments as Officers are duly confirmed according to their...
M.R. Vasuki Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR690; 1992(2)KarLJ223
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. All these appellants were writ petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1877 to 1881 of 1988. The Writ Petitions were filed praying for the following reliefs:(A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Civil List (Gradation List) in the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officers as on 1-7-1987 under the Notification dated 14-9-1987 bearing No. Nil issued by the 1st respondent, produced herewith at Annexure-C, insofar as it relates to the rankings assigned to them at Sl.Nos. 36, 39 and 42 to 44 respectively: (B) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order, writ or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to prepare a fresh Gradation List in the Cadre of Assistant Accounts Officers in accordance with the principles laid down in Gonal Bhimapa v. The State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1987 SC 2359 and also in V.B. Badami v. The State of Karnataka, reported in : (1975)IILLJ466SC . (C) Issue a writ in the ...
B.S. Rajput Vs. M/S. the Cellar and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant9; ILR1996KAR1678; 1992(3)KarLJ725
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of admission respondents are served. Respondent No. 2-contesting respondent is also represented through a counsel. As the appeal can be disposed of on a short point even at the admission stage, it is admitted and taken up for final hearing itself.2. The only point that arises for consideration is : whether the trial Court is justified in law in not awarding interest on the suit amount for the period from 28-10-1984 to 8-10-1985.3. Facts necessary for the purpose of deciding this question are no more in dispute.4. The plaintiff-appellant advanced in all a sum of Rs. 55,000/-, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the defendants under the receipts produced as per Exts. P-1 to P-3. The trial Court refused to award interest for the aforesaid period even though the plaintiff-appellant claimed interest as per registered notice Ext. P-4 on the ground that Exts. P-1 to P-3 did not provide for payment of interest. In other words, according to the learned t...
Sri Shivanna Vs. State by Arasikere Rural Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2287; ILR1992KAR2610; 1992(2)KarLJ11
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for enlarging him on bail in Crime No. 26/91 of Arasikere Rural Police Station. It is seen that the case is committed to the Sessions Court, Hassan and the same is now pending in S.C. No. 41/1991. The petitioner and another are accused of offences punishable under Ss. 302, 323 and 324, I.P.C. The petitioner is arrested in the course of investigation on 15-4-1991. He was produced before the J.M.F.C., Arasikere on 16-4-1991. He was remanded to judicial custody on the same day and the custody was extended from time to time. The charge-sheet was filed before the learned J.M.F.C., on 15-7-1991. His application before the learned J.M.F.C. for releasing him on bail did not fructify. He approached the learned Sessions Judge, Hassan praying for bail. In the meanwhile, the case was also committed to the Session Court by the J.M.F.C., Arasikere. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the application for bail. Hence, the instant petition under S. 43...
Karnataka Elecy. Board, Bangalore Vs. Workmen of M/S Amalgamated Elect ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-03-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR673; (1993)ILLJ512Kant
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The appellant is the Karnataka Electricity Board, for the sake of convenience we shall refer to it as 'the Board'. The second respondent is the Amalgamated Electric Co. Ltd. which used to supply electricity to Belgaum prior to its take-over, we shall refer to it as the erstwhile Company. The first respondents are certain workmen of the erstwhile Company. The third respondent is the Industrial Tribunal. 2. The erstwhile Company employed the 12 concerned workmen as Meter Readers. On 5th March, 1971, they were issued charge-sheets by the erstwhile Company which stated that, until August, 1970, they had been doing the programme work of taking down and reporting meter cards the motive power meter readings of consumers situated in the areas allotted to them for taking meter readings. They had stopped doing such work since the September-October, 1970 programme and had not informed the management of the erstwhile Company of the reasons for not doing this work. The charge-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›