Karnataka Court June 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.
Panalal JaIn Vs. Brhmadev Sharma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3359; 1996(5)KarLJ271
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J.1. The Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30-1-1993 passed by the Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore on I.A.IV inH.R.C. 1658/90. The matter has come up for admission. Havingregard to the fact that the point in issue lies in a narrow compass, Ihave taken up the matter for final hearing since both parties arerepresented by Counsel. 2. Heard Learned Counsel Sri. Sanghavi for the petitioner and Sri Raghupathy learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The facts relevant for the disposal of the Revision Petition, briefly stated, are as follows:The instant respondents filed application for eviction against the instant Revision petitioner in H.R.C. 1658/90 praying for an order of eviction under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('the Act' for short) on the basis of the allegations reflected in the petition for eviction.4. The petition for eviction was resisted by the instant Revision petitioner inter alia on the ground that the instant resp...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Goramma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC5
Ramakrishna, J.1. The appellant-insurer has challenged in this appeal the judgment and award dated 8-9-1987 made in M.V.C. No. 186 of 1985 by the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandya, by which he awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 71,600/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment.2. The appellant has taken two specific grounds in this appeal. They are: (1) Respondent-8 Siddappa obtained a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question by misrepresentation though, in fact, he was not the owner thereof on the date of the policy muchless on the date of accident. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation awarded against such a policy. (2) Under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act for short), the liability of the insurer is limited to Rs. 50,000/- as it is a statutory liability and any amount in excess of the said amount shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle....
Syndicate Bank Vs. Devendra Karkera
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant1; 1993(4)KarLJ323
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Thedecree-holder is the appellant. The respondent is the claimant under O. 21, R. 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The appellant-Bank had obtained a decree against Krishna Karkera and others in O.S. No. 121/82. The decree was not satisfied and in the process of executing the said decree the appellant attached the boat in question asserting that the boat belongs to Krishna Karkera.3. There is no dispute that the boat in question originally belonged to Krishna Karkera. It was hypothecated in favour of appellant-Bank's Ashok Nagar Branch at Mangalore. In the year 1988, Krishna Karkera sold the boat to one Madhava Shriyan and in the year 1989 said Madhava Shriyan sold the boat to Devcndra Karkera as per Ex. P. 1. The said sale transaction was completed by payment of balance in the year 1991 as per F,x. P.3. After the purchase Devendra Karkera was administering the loan account of Krishna Karkera in the banks branch at Ashok Nagar and ultimately the said loa...
Mallika Metal Foundry Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1993
Reported in: [1994]95STC27(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. This appeal is by the assessee under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short); the question involved pertains to the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Assessee is a dealer who manufactures batteries and battery plates (also referred as lead battery plates). In respect of the battery plates, assessee paid tax at the rate of 4 per cent (or 5 per cent depending upon the assessment years) under section 5(1) of the Act, on the ground that these battery plates were not covered by any specified entry in any of the Schedules to the Act; orders of assessment were made accordingly. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes proposed to revise these assessment orders suo motu under section 21 of the Act and after hearing the assessee dropped the proceedings; Deputy Commissioner proposed to revise the assessment orders on the ground that these battery plates come within the purview of 'batteries of m...
Dyamappa Vs. Appanna Bhovi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1894; 1993(2)KarLJ540
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders, Annexures-B and C, made by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, respondents 4 and 3 herein, respectively, and sought for quashing the same for the reasons set out in the grounds of the Petition.2. A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of the Petition are as follows:-The undisputed facts as disclosed from the averments of the Petition and the impugned orders are that five acres of land in Sy.No. 21/6 situated in Akkathangiyerakatte, Honnali Taluk, Shimoga District, was granted under Darkhast in favour of Dasabhovi, father of Appanna Bhovi, respondent-1 herein, in proceedings No. M4. DCP.19/47-48 dated 12.8.1948 subject to certain conditions and thereafter saguvali chit was also issued in his favour. It is seen that the Deputy Commissioner granted the land in question applying the provisions of the Mysore Land Grant Rules p...
Zaheera Banu Kareem Vs. Gomathi Bai G. Kamath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR662
Hanumanthappa, J. 1. Pursuant to the Reference made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its Order dated 31.10.1991 in Civil Appeal No. 624 of 1973, finding of this Court is given on the Point, viz., 'legal effect of the order of the restoration of the land in favour of Bashir Ahmed'.2.In order to see that both sides are given sufficient opportunity to establish their case, this case was adjourned many times as requested by both sides. Thus the matter was heard on several dates of hearing. On the Point involved both sides made me to go through various documents produced in the case, important Sections of the Mysore Land Revenue Code and the Bombay Land Revenue Code, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Authorities relied (sic) by both sides in support of their rival contentions.3. To give a finding on the Point of Reference made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is proper to mention a few facts, as their narration will avoid the confusion which had set in.Originally one Kaushik...
Y. Mahesh Vs. Mysore Urban Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1791; 1993(3)KarLJ411
K.A.Swami, Ag. C.J.1. These Writ Appeals are preferred against the Order dated 26th February 1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.2855 to 2858 of 1992. The learned single Judge has rejected the Writ Petitions on the ground that the appellants herein have not disclosed in the Petitions the nature of interest they have in seeking the reliefs in their Petitions; that petitioners 3 and 4 in the Writ Petitions, appellants herein, are close relations of one Sri Y.R.Aswathanarayana Rao, who is the President of Madhuvana Griha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, Mysore and that the petitioners have instituted the Petitions with an oblique motive. Therefore, the learned single Judge has declined to entertain the Writ Petitions on the ground that the petitioners do not have sufficient interest to maintain the Petitions. 2. When these Appeals came up for orders on 4.8.1992 learned Counsel Sri T.S.Ramachandra, who had filed the Appeals, sought permission to retire, as learned Counsel ...
Vijay Mahanthesh Vidyavardhak Sangh Vs. Karnataka University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1910; 1992(2)KarLJ388
ORDERVasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioner in this Writ Petition has sought the following reliefs.-a) Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Annexure-H, dated 20.5.1992 in No. KV VIM (Samyojane) 91-92 700 issued by the first respondent herein.b) Direct the respondents to consider on merits the application made by the petitioner Sangha for the affiliation of its BEd college for the academic year 1991-92 in accordance with the provisions of Section 53 of the Act and issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant affiliation/renewal/continuation of affiliation for the academic year 1992-93. During the pendency of this Writ Petition the petitioner has filed additional statement of facts and has sought for quashing of the order dated 19.6.1992 on the following lines (I.A.No. 1 was allowed on 26.8.1992).c) Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order at Annexure-J dated 19.6.1992 in No. ED 108 UGC 91 passed by the Second respondent herein in the interest of justice.F...
Thore Salappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3072; 1993(4)KarLJ552
ORDERShivaprakash, J. 1. These Writ Petitions arise out of the same set of facts in respect of sites in the Layout formed by the second respondent in Sy.Nos. 174 and 175 of Ketamaranahally, now known as 'Further extension of Mahalakshmi Layout'. W.P. Nos.5490 to 5494 of 1991 and W.P. 27338/91 are filed by the allottees of the sites. W.P. Nos. 6446 to 6456 of 1989 are filed by respondents 3 and 4 challenging the validity of the allotment of the sites by the second respondent. 2. The parties are referred to hereinafter by their respective positions in W.P.Nos. 5490 to 5494 of 1991. 3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The aforesaid two Sy.Nos. measuring 26 acres 25 guntas were notified for acquisition under Notification dated 25-3-1975 issued under Section 16(1) of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 for extension of Mahalakshmi Layout. The said Preliminary Notification was followed by the Final Notification dated 15-7-1977 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 4-...
Dr. S.B. Amarkhed Vs. Basangouda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2734; 1993(3)KarLJ448
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. This Petition is filed under Section 81 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the unsuccessful candidate Dr. S.B, Amarkhed praying for declaring the election of respondent-1 to the 23-Manvi Assembly Constituency as void under the provisions of Section 100(1) (a), (b) & (d) of the Act, on the count that respondent-1 was disqualified to be a Member of the State Legislative Assembly under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India; as also on the count that corrupt practices such as, rigging and booth capturing have been practised at the election by respondent-1 and his supporters and also on the count that the result of the election in so far as it concerned respondent-1 has been materially affected. The petitioner has also prayed for declaring him as having been duly elected from the said Constituency.2. General election to 23-Manvi Assembly Constituency was held on 24-11-1989. The last date for filing nomination t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »