Karnataka Court March 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.
Krishnaswamy Naidu Vs. Jagannatha Naidu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1606; 1996(5)KarLJ181
Mirdhe, J.1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant who was the defendant in the trial Court under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.1.1981 passed by the Civil Judge, KGF. in R.A.No. 80 of 1979 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 9.7,1979 passed by the Munsiff, KGF, in O.S.No. 209 of 1974.2. 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 respondent filed the suit for cancellation of the registered Release Deed dated 25.8.73, the certified copy of which is at Ex.D-1 and for restraining the appellant from alienating the suit schedule property and from collecting rents of the suit schedule premises and costs, on the averment that the appellant is a close relative of the respondent and he was also acting as the Power of Attorney Holder of Sri B. Bhaskara Naidu who was the original owner of the schedule property and the respondent is a permanent res...
S. H. Taralagatti Vs. Director General, All India Radio
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1993
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)328; ILR1994KAR3478; 1995(1)KarLJ75
ORDERSreenivasa Reddy, J1. 1n this Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed the validity and correctness of the judgment dated 7.4.1988 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad in M.No. 48/84 confirming the order dated 21.9.84 passed by the First Additional Munsiff, Dharwad in Misc. Application 10/83.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 198/79, on the file of the Munsiff at Dharwad and the respondents are the defendants therein. The said suit was for a declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from removing the name of the plaintiff from the List of Artists, All India Radio, Dharwad. The said suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the said decree, the defendants have preferred R.A.No.51/83 before the Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad which is pending disposal.3. The petitioner herein and Sri T.V. Chavan, another Staff Artist filed Mis. Application Nos. 10/83 and 11/83 respectively under Section 195(i)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code befor...
P.R. Chindak and Others Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1993
Reported in: [1994]93STC139(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. There are three sets of writ petitions. In the first set we are concerned with rayon yarn. These are Writ Petitions Nos. 13166 and 13167 of 1988, 2611 of 1989, 9843 of 1989, 7767 and 7768 of 1986, 13165 of 1988, 6427 and 6428 of 1986, 5939 and 5940 of 1986 and W.P. No. 17571 of 1988. 2. In the second set the question pertains to acrylic yarn and nylon yarn. They are Writ Petitions Nos. 4025 and 4026 of 1989, 7430 of 1988 and W.P. No. 9627 of 1988 (petitioner is the same in all these petitions). 3. In the third set the question pertains to 'synthetic spun yarn', that is raised in W.P. No. 6215 of 1988 only. 4. The question is whether these articles fall within entry 24 of the Second Schedule or entry 147 of the said Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). Entry 147 was inserted in the Second Schedule wit effect from April 1, 1962. However, entry 24 was found in the Second in the Second Schedule from the very beginning of the Act, t...
Rekha Vishwanath Ganachari Vs. Registrar (Evaluation)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1238; 1993(2)KarLJ5
ORDERKedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Rule.2. The petitioner has sought for a direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent-University to produce the answer book of the petitioner pertaining to the Transfer of Property Act including Indian Trust Act of II Year LL.B., held in April/May 1992 bearing Reg.No. 873274 in order to justify the award of marks by the re-value in accordance with the scheme of valuation and to grant such other relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.3. The material facts are that the petitioner is a Post Graduate in Commerce from the University of Poona, Pune and secured her M.Com., degree in 'B' Grade i.e., Second Class in the year 1980. She took admission to the I Year LL.B. course in K.L.E.Society's evening Law College, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, on 13.8.1986. The petitioner has passed all subjects in the 1st Year LL.B., and all subjects in the IIIrd Year LL.B. in one attempt at the examina...
Vijaya Bank Ltd. Vs. Ganapathy Filaments
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1427; 1992(2)KarLJ162
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff-Bank is the appellant before us. It is aggrieved by the rate of interest awarded by the Trial Court on the amount decreed from the date of the filing of the suit. Though the Trial Court accepted the plaintiff's case and decreed the suit as prayed for including the rate of interest upto the date of suit, current interest was awarded at the rate of 6 per cent only.2. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are the partners of defendant No. 1 Firm. The defendants obtained a loan of Rs. 98,500/- from the plaintiff on 29th June, 1975 agreeing to pay interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum over the Reserve Bank of India rate with a minimum of 15 per cent per annum with monthly rests. There was another loan obtained by the defendants referred as 'open loan cash credit' in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with a similar agreement regarding the rate of interest. Since the defendants defaulted in the payment, suit was filed on 29th June, 1978, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,41,148.51 with cu...
Valerine Basil Pais and ors. Vs. Gilbert Willam James Pais and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1993
Reported in: II(1993)DMC150; 1992(2)KarLJ301
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The appellant before us is the plaintiff. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and second defendant is the purchaser of the second item of the plaint schedule property. There is no dispute that the plaintiff and defendants are the children of Roza Nazareth, who died on 24th July, 1954. There were other children also. The first defendant set up a Will under which he claimed exclusive right in respect of the assets left by Roza Nazareth. On 6th March, 1964, the first defendant obtained a probate as per Ex.D-11. Subsequently, he sold the second item on 6th December, 1971, to the second defendant. According to the plaintiff, the probate obtained by the first defendant was without notice and was void. He approached the Court for revocation of the probate and the revocation was ordered on 3rd March, 1975 as per Ex. P-7. Subsequently he obtained the shares of other children of Roza Nazareth, except that of the first defendant, and proceeded to file th...
Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1016; [1993]202ITR887(KAR); [1993]202ITR887(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ471
K.A. Swami, Actg. C.J.1. This appeals is preferred against the order dated March 1, 1993, passed by the learned single judge in W. P. No. 5683 of 1993.2. The learned single judge has rejected the writ petition with the following observations :'The petitioner is calling in question certain proceedings initiated under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner is neither the transaction nor the transferee. The petitioner wants to call in question the jurisdiction of the authorities to invoke the provisions of Chapter XX-C on the ground that it does not come within Chapter XX-C in the light of certain observations made by the Supreme Court. That question need not be determined by me in this proceedings at the instance of the petitioner. If at all the petitioners is entitled to leasehold rights, he can certainly protect the same by filing a civil suit. Hence, I decline to entertain this petition. Petition is rejected.'2. Though in the writ appeal and in the writ petition the ...
Krishnappa Setty Vs. Ramakrishnappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1580
Murgod, J.1. At the stage of Admission the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the caveators are heard at length.2. This Appeal is filed against the decree of dismissal of the suit O.S.No. 294/1983 on the file of the VIII Additional City Civil Judge. Bangalore. The suit was filed for permanent injunction only. The impugned order dismissing the suit discloses that a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit was framed on the basis of the grounds urged by defendant No. 14 in his written statement. The said issue reads as under:'Whether the suit as brought is not maintainable for any of the grounds urged by defendant No. 14 in his written statement?'The two grounds on which the suit came to be dismissed are that no leave was obtained to institute the suit under Section 92 C.P.C. and the leave to institute the suit under Section 92 C.P.C. refused to Putta Rudra and others in Misc. No. 42/1985 on 27.6.1990 was binding on the present appellan...
M/S Visveswaraya Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. M. Chandrappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: 1993(1)KarLJ633; (1993)IILLJ198Kant; (1994)ILLJ555Kant
ORDERK.A. Swami, Actg. C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the Order dated February 1, 1993 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3486 of 1993 (L). In the writ petition, the appellant has challenged the Award dated August 17, 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore, in Reference No. ID (LCM) 10 of 1988. The Labour Court has set aside the Order, dated May 31, 1985 passed by the appellant terminating the services of respondent No. 1 and directed reinstatement of respondent No. 1 with all back wages along with consequential benefits and the costs of the proceeding. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has stayed the operation of the Award subject to the condition that respondent No. 1 is reinstated and paid current wages. 2. Sri S. G. Sundaraswamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that this is not a case in which respondent No. 1 should be ordered to be reinstated pending decision as to the validity...
Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. C.S. Satya Kumari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1167; (1993)IILLJ900Kant
ORDERK.A. Swami, AG. C.J. 1. When Writ Appeal No. 181 of 1993 came up for preliminary hearing, it was found necessary to hear Writ Petition No. 15449 of 1991 along with the writ appeal because the writ appeal arises out of the interim order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 15449 of 1991 has been posted today along with Writ Appeal No. 181 of 1993. Hence, we have heard both the matters together. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner who is the respondent in the writ appeal, has sought for quashing the show-cause notice dated June 12, 1991, bearing No. 1431/156 (C.S. 205) 90/91, issued by the respondent in the writ petition, produced as Annexure-A. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that Clause XVI of the Memorandum dated February 11, 1982, produced as Annexure-B, is illegal, void and inoperative. The show-cause notice, Annexure-A, is issued for the purpose of determining as to whether the petitioner belongs to Kadu Kuruba Community. It may be p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »