Karnataka Court March 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Progressive Engineering and Annapurna R ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1992
Reported in: [1993]200ITR231(KAR); [1993]200ITR231(Karn)
1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue. The question that is referred reads thus : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the subsidy received by the assessee should not be deducted from the cost of the capital asset for the purpose of grant of depreciation and investment allowance ?' 2. The matter is on board today only because the notice to the respondent has not yet been returned, but Mr. H. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for the Revenue, fairly states that the question is to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Diamond Dies Mfg. Corporation Ltd. : [1988]172ITR655(KAR) . Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee....
Syndicate Bank Vs. A.K. Ahmed Bawa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1992
Reported in: [1993]77CompCas372(Kar); ILR1992KAR2016; 1992(2)KarLJ498
Swamy, J. 1. At the stage of admission the respondent is notified. Accordingly, he has put in appearance through a counsel. As the appeal involves a short question as to awarding of interest from the date of suit till the date of realisation and as that question can be decided on the basis of the finding recorded by the trial court, we do not consider it necessary to call for the records. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted. The production of paper books is dispensed with. The appeal is heard for final disposal. 2. The only point that arises for consideration is as to whether the trial court is justified in law and on facts in awarding interest at 6 per cent. on the sum of Rs. 10,09,691.70 from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. 3. The facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the aforesaid point are no more in dispute. The defendants-respondent raised a loan of Rs. 7,40,000 from the appellant-plaintiff bank on August 3, 1985, mortgaging the suit schedule properties f...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Veronica ObrIn (Smt.) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1992
Reported in: 1993ACJ758; [1992(65)FLR221]; 1992(3)KarLJ80; (1999)IIILLJ430Kant
N. Venkatachala, J. 1. The award appealed against by the Inspector is of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the WC Act'). The insurer's liability under the said award to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 3, who are the dependents of deceased Machale Obrin, a driver of a motor vehicle, has arisen because of a Policy of Insurance issued by it under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the MV Act'),covering the risk of the driver of that motor vehicle as workman of employer-owner of that motor vehicle, respondent 4. Respondents 1 to 3 have made their claim for compensation under the WC Act for the death of workman (driver) opting to the forum provided for under the WC Act as permitted under Section 110-AA of the MV Act. Such opting disentitled respondents 1 to 3 to make a claim for compensation in the forum provided for under the MV Act, in that, Section 110-AA forbids the claimants in making the claims for compensati...
Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Veronica Obrin
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1640
Venkatachala, J. 1. The award appealed against by the Insurer is of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the WC Act'). The insurer's liability under the said award to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 3, who are the dependents of deceased Machale Obrin, a driver of a motor vehicle, has arisen because of a Policy of Insurance issued by it under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the MV Act'), issued covering the risk of the driver of that motor vehicle as workman of employer - owner of that motor vehicle, respondent-4. Respondents 1 to 3 have made their claim for compensation under the WC Act for the death of workman (driver) opting to the forum provided for under the WC Act as permitted under Section 110-AA of the MV Act. Such opting disentitled respondents 1 to 3 to make a claim for compensation in the forum provided for under the MV Act, in that, Section 110-AA forbids the claimants in making the claims for compe...
V. Shanmugam Vs. K. Rathnaiah Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1735; 1992(3)KarLJ27
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. The tenant is the Revision petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the respondents herein, the landlords, are referred as the petitioners, as in the trial Court. They sought the tenant's eviction from a shop premises, on the ground of their requirement to occupy the shop in order to carry on their business in cloth. Hitherto, petitioners have been carrying on business in the same road in a shop belonging to one J.B.Kempanna Setty Charities, (for short, 'the Charities'). The Charities obtained eviction order against the petitioners and in the said circumstances, petitioners purchased the schedule premises tenanted by the respondent (i.e., the tenant) so that after evicting the tenant, petitioners may continue to carry on their business in Avenue Road itself.The tenant contested the claim of the petitioners. The trial Court has accepted the petitioner's case and ordered eviction.Hence this Revision Petition by the tenant.The relationship between the parties...
Sgt. Jeevan Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1027; 1992(2)KarLJ408
Venkatachala, J.1. These Writ Appeals, W.A.Nos. 78/92, 141/92 and 152/92, are preferred under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the petitioners respectively in Writ Petitions, W.P.Nos. 20048/89, 12320/90 and 5850/90, questioning the correctness of the commonorder dated 3-1-1992 of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing their Writ Petitions.2. As the learned single Judge, by his Common Order under Appeals, had refused to interfere with the orders of discharge of Airmen, who were subject to Air Force Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act'), we were, to begin with, rather disinclined to entertain these appeals being of the view that disciplinary action taken by Air Force Officers respecting their Airmen in the strategic and sensitive area of the Defence Air Force was not rightly interfered with in exercise of this Court's discretionary Writ jurisdiction. However, as we later found that the orders of Airmen impugned in the Writ Petitions had not been made conforming to ...
Prashi and Others Vs. Syndicate Bank and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant63; ILR1992KAR1113; 1992(4)KarLJ642
ORDERSwami, J. 1. This appeal is preferred under S. 96 read with O.21, R.43A of the Civil P.C. against the order dated 20th November 1987 passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore on I.A.VII filed in O.S. No. 146/83. The aforesaid suit was filed by the first respondent against respondents 2 to 6. The appellants 1 and 2 herein are not parties to the suit. The appellant No. 3, though he was a party to the suit and a decree was passed against him, with the permission of the Court has been transposed as respondent No. 6. Thus this appeal is by appellants 1 and 2 who were not parties to the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit against respondents 2 to 6 herein who were defendants 1 to 5 in the suit for a sum of Rs. 6,01,287-35 Ps being the amount due to the plaintiff-bank. During the pendency of the suit the fishing boat in question was ordered to be seized as it was hypothecated to the plaintiff-bank and was entrusted to appellants 1 and 2 and the 6th respondentherein. D...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Irawwa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1992
Reported in: 1992ACJ918; AIR1992Kant321; [1995]83CompCas764(Kar); ILR1992KAR1592
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this appeal presented under Section 173 of the Mo'tor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an interim award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, on a claim petition presented under Section 166 of the Granting compensation of Rs..25,000-00 under Section 140 of the 1988 Act in respect of death of a passenger travelling in a goods carriage together with his goods as a result of a motor accident which took place on 6-11-1990, that is, after the commencement of the 1989 Act, the following question of law arises for consideration :Whether under an Insurance Policy taken in conformity with the requirement of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of death or bodily injury to any passenger travelling in a 'goods carriage' whether as a hirer or otherwise?2. Brief facts of the case are these :-- One Suresh was travelling in a goods carriage bearing Registration No. MEH 5015. The goods carriage was...
Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wodiyar Vs. Enforcement Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-1992
Reported in: 1992(3)KarLJ74; (1993)IIILLJ153Kant
ORDERD.P. Hiremath, J. 1. These petitions are taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself with the consent of both learned counsels.2. These criminal petitions arise out of eighteen independent complaints filed by the respondent-Enforcement Officer, Mysore Division against the present petitioner and five others for offences under paragraph 76 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and Employees' Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, II Court, Mysore. As the accused persons named in the complaints, the complainant and the provisions under which such defaults could fee punished are the same, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. Sections 14(1-A) and 14-A of the Act are the relevant provisions as also Section 14-AC of the Act. These contributions relate to differe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›