Karnataka Court June 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.
R. Dilip Kumar Vs. S. Ramu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2905; 1992(3)KarLJ685
Mirdhe, J.1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by the appellant who is the plaintiff in the Court below under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. against the order dated 12-7-1991 passed by the XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 348 of 1990 dismissing I.A.No. 1 filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.3. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent and another defendant for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the eldest son of defendant-1 and the respondent is the second son of defendant-1 and the plaintiff's brother. As the respondent has refused to effect partition in the joint family properties since they are standing in his name, the plaintiff has filed the suit. ...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Field Star Cycle Industries P. Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1992
Reported in: [1992]74CompCas79(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The appellant before us was the creditor who filed a petition for winding up of the company which is now shown as the first respondent company in liquidation. This was a private limited company. 2. On March 9, 1983, the court ordered winding up of the company and the official liquidator was appointed as the liquidator of the company. Thereafter the official liquidator took steps to realise the properties of the company and the proceedings as usual were going on. 3. It appears that in the year 1986, the official liquidator filed a report, O.L.R. No. 196 of 1986. This report was filed on July 30, 1986. The said report bears the cause title as between the official liquidator and Karnataka State Small Scale Industries Development Corporation ('KSSIDC' for short). The copy of the report was not served on the petitioner bank or its counsel. The report states that the respondent-Corporation had granted an industrial plot to the company-in-liquidation, on lease-cum-s...
Vijayanagar Syndicate Vs. B.C. Narayan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1104; 1992(3)KarLJ291
ORDERVasanthakumar, J. 1. Perused the impugned orders in the following Civil Revision Petitions, the details of which are:- CRP Nos. Impugned Order inPetitioner/PlaintiffRespondents/Defendant 275/91 SC 1518/86M/s.Vijayanagar Syndicate (Regd) No. 92, 5th Cross, Magadi Road, Bangalore-23, byits Managing Partner Sri V, VaradarajuluB.C.Naryan B.C. Lingaraju277/91 SC 1415/86-do-1 . B.C.Shivaprasad2. B.CLingaraju278/91 SC 1416/86-do-1. R.Jayaram2. B.R.Manjunath279/91 SC 1414/86-do-1. B.C.Shivaprasad2. B.C.Narayan2. The interesting question that arises for consideration in alt the above Civil Revision Petitions is whether the Court-below committed an error of law in arriving at a finding that one Sri V. Varadarajulu who has signed and verified the plaints as Managing Partner of plaintiff's firm namely M/s. Vijayanagar Syndicate (Regd) was not competent to institute the suits on behalf of plaintiff's partnership Firm? 3. M/s. Vijayanagar Syndicate (Regd) a Partnership Firm represented by one S...
S. Bangarappa Vs. Ganesh Narayan Hegade and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1992
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3788; ILR1992KAR2091; 1992(2)KarLJ449
ORDER1. This criminal petition is filed under S. 482, Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, in criminal Revision Petition No. 104/89 dated 20-7-1991 confirming the order of the learned J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli, in C.C. No. 1514/87 dated 21-1-1989 by which the learned Magistrate exercising the power under S. 246, Cr.P.C. had ordered to frame charge against accused Nos. 1 to 3 therein for an offence punishable under S. 500, I.P.C. 2. The ranking of the parties in this petition is, petitioner is accused No. 1 and respondents 2 and 3 are accused Nos. 2 and 3 while the first respondent is the Complainant in the trial Court. 3. A few facts which compelled the learned Magistrate to charge the accused for an offence under S. 500, I.P.C. are that the first respondent herein lodged a private complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. wherein the allegations are as follows :- (a) The Complainant belongs to a family known as 'Doddamane Hegde' ...
R.B. Gurubasavaiah Vs. M.G. Prema
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC191; ILR1992KAR3018; 1992(2)KarLJ533
Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The Court below has passed an exparte order granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and directed the 1st-defendant to pay the same. 3. The interesting question that arises for consideration is about widow's right to maintenance and liability of coparceners from out of the estate of the joint family? The principles have been nicely stated in the treatise on Hindu law by Mulla, In the Joint family governed by Mitakshara law, the right to maintenance is inherent quality of their right of coparcenary or common property and this right to maintenance begins and ceases where coparcenary ceases. The Manager of Mitakshara Joint family in possession of Joint family property is bound to maintain all its members male and female and the widows and children of deceased coparceners out of the income of corpus of the joint family property. This obligation is always commensurate with the possession of family ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.K. Vaidya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1992
Reported in: [1997]224ITR186(KAR); [1997]224ITR186(Karn)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In respect of the assessment years 1978-79 and 1980-81, the following question has been referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in rejecting the Revenue's ground that the difference in interest rate between Government loans and that on the loan obtained by the assessee should be treated as perquisite ?' 2. The assessee was an employee of the company called 'MICO'. The company advanced him certain amounts as loan free of interest for the purpose of house building. That this was the policy adopted by the company and several employees had obtained such loans is not a matter in dispute. In the course of the assessment of the assessee, the assessing authority held that the interest-free loan was a benefit which should be valued as a perquisite. 3. The statement of the case actually does not indicate the basic question whic...
Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2562
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In respect of two assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, the question involved pertains to the declaration filed by the appellant in respect of the sale of condensed milk to Southern Railways. 2. There is no dispute that the transactions in question were inter-State sales. The assessing authority did not accept the 'D' forms, but held that the appellant should have produced 'C' form declaration. This was reversed by the appellate authority who held that 'D' form was sufficient because it was the form furnished by the Indian Railways which is a department of Government of India. This order of the appellate authority was revised by the Commissioner under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. 3. The question pertains to the effect of section 8. The relevant portion of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, reads as follows : '8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. - (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade o...
Shyam Textiles (P.) Ltd. and Another Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Ta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1992
Reported in: [1994]94STC349(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. On September 11, 1985 at 10 a.. the Mobile Check Post Officer, Bangalore, found certain goods in an autorickshaw bearing No. CAS.358. The vehicle was stopped and prescribed documents were demanded. The driver of the vehicle tendered a delivery challan issued by the first appellant before us. Similarly, he delivered another delivery note of the same date issued by the second appellant. These delivery notes were in the printed form of the appellants which contained full particulars as to the location of the factory as well as the place of the office. The said note also had a serial number. The description of the goods 'HDPE Mono Filaments' and the number of bags and their quantity are all stated in the delivery note. The approximate value of the goods was also stated. However, these delivery notes were not the ones prescribed under rule 23B. They were not the delivery notes contained in a book which ought to have been obtained from the sales tax department, as...
Prabhavati Gangadhar Shanbhag Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC326; 1993ACJ125; [1994]79CompCas625(Kar); ILR1992KAR2959
G.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. One Anil Gangadhar Shanbhag died on December 10, 1980, at the age of 27 years as evidenced by the death certificate produced under memo dated July 19, 1981. 2. It appears, during his lifetime, he had taken six life insurance policies, the particulars of which are as follows : Policy No. Date of commencement Sum assured(Rs.)1. 40196022 21-9-1972 15,0002. 40380276 28-12-1975 10,0003. 40380277 28-12-1975 10,0004. 40384001 18-3-1976 10,0005. 50384083 20-3-1976 10,0006. 40469599 10-8-1978 25,0003. After his death, the petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased, preferred claims in respect of the amounts due under the aforesaid six policies issued by the respondent, together with the incidental benefits accruing thereon. The said claims were made by the petitioner on January 19, 1981. The respondent-Corporation, in several letters which are marked as annexures B to F, repudiated the claims made by the petitioner on the ground that the insured had suppressed certain...
Mundas Laxman and Rudramuniswamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3676
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. Sri M. Raghavendra Achar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, learned Counsel for R-3, Sri K. Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel for R-4 & Smt. Bhoopathy, learned HCGP for R-1 & 2 took notices on my direction. 2. Heard on merits as requested by all the Advocates though it is listed in the Orders fist. 3. The relief sought in this Writ Petition is to quash Annexure-E which is an order passed by the Government of Karnataka on 2.4.1992 approving the appointment of 4th respondent as Principal of a College known as Gowtham Pre-university College, Sakalespur, Hassan District. According to the petitioner, the full facts which are relevant to decide the correctness or otherwise of Annexure-A are as follows: Third respondent is a Private Educational Institution, it is admitted to Grant-in-Aid Code and is running a Pre-university College. As per Annexure A, on 3.12.1986 these two petitioners and three other persons were appointed as Lecturers to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »