Karnataka Court April 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.
M. Govindaraju Vs. Air Officer Commanding-in-chief
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3023; 1992(2)KarLJ524
Krishnan, J.1. The appellants were plaintiffs before the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No. 10111/1981 and being aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit filed for grant of permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendants, have preferred this appeal.2. The defendants have resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on various grounds and it is quite unnecessary to refer to the facts of the case put forward in the plaint and written statement in view of the fact that it is practically undisputed on both sides that the order of dismissal of suit is liable to be set aside because of the highly illegal approach made by the Civil Judge in this regard.3. The learned Civil Judge raised the following issues:1. Whether the suit is maintainable in law?2. Will the plaintiffs suffer irreparable injury if no injunction is granted now?3. What order?4. The learned Civil Judge heard Advocates on I.A.IV, an application filed Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and dismissed it by his o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.M.T. Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1992
Reported in: [1993]203ITR811(KAR); [1993]203ITR811(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In these references, five questions are referred for our consideration at the instance of the Revenue and the sixth question is referred at the instance of the assessee. The references are under 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short), pertaining to the assessment year 1981-82. The questions read thus :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow depreciation on roads, walls and fences ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who directed the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to allow extra shift allowance on water system and sanitation ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the orde...
P. Madhavan Nair and Others Vs. K. Ravindran Unni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant203; 1992(2)KarLJ517
ORDERKrishnan, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the common Judgment passed by the Family Court, in two proceedings initiated before it under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, in respect of the custody of one Varun, a minor child. G. & W.C. No. 73/87 was filed by the grandparents of the said Varun to appoint them as guardians of their grand-child and G & W.C. No. 75/87 was filed by the father of the said Varun to get custody of his son. The first petition came to be dismissed and the second petition came to be allowed and therefore, the grand-parents who happen to be the petitioners in the first petition and respondents in the second petition have preferred these appeals.2. The evidence has been recorded in the first petition G & W.C. No. 73/87 and in the lower Court the parties have been referred to by virtue of the ranks they had occupied in the 1st petition. For the sake of convenience we will also adopt the same course of reference to the parties, by virtue ...
Bangalore Wire Rod Mills Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT37(Kar); ILR1992KAR1609
Rama Jois, J. 1. In these two writ appeals presented against the judgment of the learned Judge partly allowing the writ petition presented by M/s. Bangalore Wire Rod Mills, one by the petitioner and the other by Union of India, the following two questions of law arise for consideration. 1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay interest on the amount of customs duty claimable in respect of the goods left in the warehouse on 11-11-1982 for the period in excess of the period during which it was permitted to be left in the warehouse under Section 61(1) of the Act (as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 11 of 1983) or from the date specified in the demand notice served on the petitioner in terms of Section 59 of the Act, or in terms of Section 61(2) of the Act inserted with effect from 13-5-1983, by Amending Act 11 of 1983. 2. Whether the interest should be calculated on the basis of the amount of duty payable computed in accordance with the rate of duty which prevailed as on the date...
Madhavan Nair Vs. Ravindran Unni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2197
Krishnan, J. 1. These two Appeals are directed against the common Judgment passed by the Family Court, in two proceedings initiated before it under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, in respect of the custody of one Varun, a minor child. G & W.C. No. 73/87 was filed by the grand-parents of the said Varun to appoint them as guardians of their grand-child and G & W.C. No. 75/87 was filed by the father of the said Varun to get custody of his son. The first Petition came to be dismissed and the second Petition came to be allowed and therefore, the grand-parents who happen to be the petitioners in the first Petition and respondents in the second Petition have preferred these Appeals.2. The evidence has been recorded in the first petition G & W.C. No. 73/87 and in the lower Court the parties have been referred to by virtue of the ranks they had occupied in the 1st Petition. For the sake of convenience we will also adopt the same course of reference to the parties, by virtue of th...
R. Venkategowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1447; 1992(3)KarLJ137
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. As vital questions of National importance concerning the necessity of always maintaining the democratic character of Local Self Governments arise for consideration in this Writ Petition presented by 15 citizens/voters, who are residing in various villages situate in different Districts of the State aggrieved by the indefinite postponement of election to all the Zilla Parishads in the State, inter alia, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to hold elections to those bodies in accordance with the Legislative mandate incorporated in the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ('the Act' for short), the same has been referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act.2. The brief facts, circumstances and statutory provisions, which have given rise to the petition, are these:-(i) The Act was enacted by the State Legislature, in exercise of its legislative power under Articles 24...
Narayana Reddy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2328
K.A. Swami, J1. At the stage of admission, records are received. The respondent has been notified and it has put in appearance through a Counsel.2. As the Appeal can be disposed of on a short point, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.3. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent B.D.A. has produced two Gazette Notifications dated 20-5-1984 published in the Official Gazette dated 28-6-1984 and 23-11-1989 published in the Official Gazette dated 23-2-1989 issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) respectively of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') acquiring the suit lands along with several other lands for the formation of Shinivagalu Tank Bed (Breached) and Surrounding Area Layout. Sri U.L.Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he has no objection for permitting the B.D.A. to produce the aforesaid two Notifications as additional evidence. I n addition to this, ...
Chennappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant188; ILR1993KAR1589
ORDER1. The questions to be decided in all these writ petitions are common as such all the petitions are clubbed and a common order is passed.The reliefs sought in all the petitions are identical as such the same are extracted hereunder : 'Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to : a) Issue any appropriate writ, order ordirection, declaring that the petitioner cannotbe evicted except in accordance with law inparticular only after complying with therequirement under Sec. 51 of the Transfer ofProperty Act; b) Declare that the restoration of the lands in pursuance of the orders under Sec. 5 of the Act is coupled with the encumbrances. c) Direct the respondents to hold an enquiry regarding the encumbrances and charge created on the respective properties before causing evictions. d) Direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of lands as a measure of alternative lands as per the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. e...
Tiffany's Bar and Restaurant Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i.C.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR909]; ILR1992KAR2999; 1992(4)KarLJ625; (1993)ILLJ830Kant
Venkatachala, J.1. M/s. Tiffany's Bar and Restaurant which is the appellant in this Appeal filed under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act', for short) has questioned the order dated September 23, 1991 made by the Employees' Insurance Court (for short, the Court) upholding the liability of the appellant to pay contribution of Rs. 3,107.35 in respect of wages paid by it to the band boys who had been engaged during the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 for playing during its certain business hours in deciding the ESI Application No. 80 of 1988 made before it by the appellant.2. The short question which came up for consideration by the Insurance Court was whether the band boys for whom the appellant was paying wages for the music played by them in its Bar & Restaurant, could be regarded as employees within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the ESI Act so as to make the appellant liable to pay contribution under the Act. That question has been answered by the Insurance Co...
Yellappa Surendra Halagi Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Rev)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2152; 1992(2)KarLJ341
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. The petitioners have sought for quashing the orders, Annexures A, B, D and E made by respondents 3, 2 and 1 respectively, and for declaring Annexures A and B as null and void.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioners 1 to 4 are the sons and daughter of Surendra by Sushila Bai, alleged kept mistress of Surendra. Sudhir, respondent-5, is the son of, and Jayashri, respondent-6, is the wife of the said Surendra. Respondent-5 filed a suit in O.S.17/72 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum, against his father Surendra as defendant-1 and nine others including Appa Saheb son of Surendra by his first wife, for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties except lands in Sy.No. 475 and also for mesne profits. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Accordingly a preliminary decree was drawn and the decree was transmitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum District, for effecting partition and delivery of separate ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »