Karnataka Court December 1993 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.
Assistant Executive Engineer Vs. Sunanda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC455; 1995ACJ218; [1994(68)FLR686]; ILR1994KAR515
Shivaprakash, J.1. This is an Appeal presented by the 'employer' under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :The deceased Krishna while working at Bhadra River left Bank Canal slipped into the Canal and died on 4-3-1992. Respondent No. 1 is the wife of the deceased and Respondent No. 2 is the mother of the deceased. They presented the claim petition before the Commissioner, who by his order, dated 6-9-1993 has awarded a sum of Rs. 68,977-00 with simple interest at 6% from 4-3-1992 till the date of deposit. 3. Sri H. J. Sunderkumar, learned High Court Government Advocate submitted that the decreased was not a 'Workman' as defined in the Act. Section 2(1)(n) defines 'Workman' as follows :'Workman' means any person (other than a person whose employment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business) who is (i) a railway servant as...
State of Karnataka Vs. Mutha Nayak
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)93; ILR1994KAR500; 1994(2)KarLJ186
Hiremath, J1. Heard. The case of the prosecution in brief is that both theaccused - respondents forged the signature of Rajeeva Poojary withcommon intention and cheated the Karnataka Bank. Hence,committed offences under Sections 465, 120B, 109 and 419 I.P.C.The President, Taluk Development Board, Kundapur and thecomplainant, Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Development Boardhad together issued two cheques to one Rajeeva Poojary ofRs.1,000/- each towards flood relief to be paid on 28.3.83. Thesecheques were numbered 060646 and 060647. When the mistake wasrealised, Rajeeva Poojary was approached, but he told that he hadencashed only one cheque. The entire case is now confined to ExhibitP-1 bearing No. 060647. Bank officials gave evidence that both theaccused had come to the Karnataka Bank Office and they weresupplied with forms to open an account and one Krishna Prabhuidentified them by putting his signature but not being personallypresent. Some of the officials also deposed about th...
State Vs. G. Radhakrishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)ALT(Cri)218; ILR1994KAR497; 1994(2)KarLJ174
Hiremath, J1. The accused - respondent was prosecuted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. The charge against him was that on 14.12.1987 at about 6.50 a.m. on VISL Double Road at Bhadravathi, the respondent - accused was the driver of the jeep MES 8882 owned by a certain Mysore Paper Mills, drove it in a rash and negligent manner, hit the autorickshaw CTS 7579 and caused the death of the driver of the rickshaw and caused simple and grievous hurt to the passengers in it. Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that no rashness or negligence on the part of the accused was proved. In challenging this Judgment of acquittal, it is contended on behalf of the State by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the Trial Court ought to have believed the evidence of the injured witnesses though no other eye witness has been examined. Even if independent corroboration was required, it was provided by Police Constable -P.W.5 on whose complaint the case came to be registered. We h...
State Vs. Ibrahimsab Maibubsab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR503; 1994(2)KarLJ176
Hiremath, J1. The State has sought enhancement of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court against the accused - respondent for offence under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. Charge sheet was filed on 20.5.89. On the same day an application for advancement was filed by the accused with a request to take the case on file and the Trial Court acceded to his request, furnished copies of documents on which the prosecution proposed to rely to the accused, called the case at 3.00 p.m., recorded his plea of guilt which the accused made, convicted for the offence under Section 304A I.P.C. and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 500/- with default sentence. In challenging the adequacy of sentence it is contended for the State that the Trial Court ought to have imposed minimum substantive imprisonment as the law is now well settled in cases of this nature. In order to consider the State appeal we also considered the merits of conviction as the Appellate Court is duty bound.2. We are not happy with the spee...
State Vs. Radha Krishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC557
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. The accused-respondent was prosecuted under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The charge against him was that on 14.12.1987 at about 6.50 a.m. on VISL Double Road at Bhadravathi, the respondent-accused was the driver of the jeep MES 8882 owned by a certain Mysore Paper Mills, drove it in a rash and negligent manner, hit the autorickshaw CTS 7579 and caused the death of the driver of the rickshaw and caused simple and grievous hurt to the passengers in it. Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that no rashness or negligence on the part of the accused was proved. In challenging this Judgment of acquittal, it is contended on behalf of the State by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the Trial Court ought to have believed the evidence of the injured witnesses though no other eye witness has been examined. Even if independent corroboration was required, it was provided by Police Constable - P.W. 5 on whose complaint the case came to be registered. ...
H.N. Nanjegowda Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR936
ORDERRajendra Babu, J 1. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to:(i) direct the Union of India to invoke the provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and introduce President's Rule in the State; (ii) direct the 2nd respondent to seek necessary financial assistance from the 1st respondent to the relief of the earthquake victims in the Northern parts of Karnataka; and (iii) direct the 1st respondent to provide sufficient funds to rehabilitate the flood and earthquake victims immediately and also to direct the 2nd respondent to set up a separate machinery to undertake the rehabilitation of flood and earthquake victims on war-footing. 2. The Petition is filed on behalf of the citizens of the State of Karnataka alleging that a situation has arisen in which the Government cannot be run in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution on account of the fact that there is no Council of Ministers worth the name as contemplated under Articles ...
Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: 1994(70)ELT172(Kar)
ORDER1. Denial of the benefit of exemption granted to Small Scale Industrial units, to the petitioners who are SSI units but are alleged to be using the brand name/trade name of another, is the subject matter of these writ petitions. 2. As per Notification No. 175/86, Small Scale Industries (SSI Units, for short) were granted exemption from the levy of duty under the provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act'). Subsequently, by Notification No. 223/87 dated 22-9-1987, para-7 was added to the earlier Notification, effect of which is to deny the exemption to the SSI Units using the brand name/trade name of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemptions under the Notification. These Notifications were issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules. 3. Petitioners attack the validity of the second Notification (No. 223/1987) on the grounds that it is ultra vires the provisions of the Act and that it offends Art. 14 of the Constitution. In a few writ p...
Poonam Stone Processing Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commerci ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: [1994]94STC183(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Petitioners have set up a small-scale industrial unit in tiny sector for the purpose of stone polishing, high polishing and stone cutting. A provisional registration certificate was issued on September 11, 1987. S.S.I. certificate was obtained on February 18, 1988. Petitioners claim the benefit of a notification dated March 31, 1983 issued under section 8-A(1)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). Under the said notification the Government exempted the tax payable under the Act on the turnover of goods manufactured in Karnataka and sold by all tiny sector industrial units for a period of 5 years from the respective date of commencement of the commercial production, subject to certain restrictions and conditions, with which we are not concerned here. However, condition (viii) states that industry should not be one specified in the appendix to the notification. Appendix does not refer to the industry of the petitioner. In the year 1985...
Nectar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: 1994(45)ECC107; 1994(2)KarLJ255
ORDERK. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Denial of the benefit of exemption granted to Small Scale Industrial Units, to the petitioners who are SSI units but are alleged to be using the brand name/trade name of another, is the subject matter of these writ petitions.2. As per Notification No. 175/86, Small Scale Industries (SSI Units, for short) were granted exemption from the levy of duty under the provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act'). Subsequently, by Notification No. 223/87 dated 22-9-1987, para-7 was added to the earlier Notification, effect of which is to deny the exemption to the SSI Units using the brand name/trade name of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemptions under the Notification. These Notifications were issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules.3. Petitioners attack the validity of the second Notification (No. 223/1987) on the grounds that it is ultra vires the provisions of the Act and that it offends Art. 14 of the Constit...
Basappa Girmalla Yadwad Vs. Ramappa Firagappa Hadimani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR518; 1994(1)KarLJ548
ORDERN.D.V.Bhat, J1. This Civil Revision Petition is referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge (Justice N.D.V.Bhat) under Section 8(2) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 4.2.1989 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Chikodi in R.A.No.51/1987. By the said order, the learned Civil Judge took the view that having regard to the fact that the decree in question was passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Chikodi, the learned Civil Judge had the power to try and dispose of the appeal preferred against such a decree notwithstanding the fact that the suit in question was transferred to the file of the Court of Munsiff, Chikodi from the file of the Court of Munsiff, Raibag. It will have to be seen as to whether the view taken by the learned Civil Judge is correct.2. We have heard the arguments of Sri Balakrishna Shastry, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri F.S.Dabali, learned Counsel for respondents-2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »