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.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Dattatraya Nagesh Wader and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC338
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. The applicant who was the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi (since retired) has sought expunging certain observations/remarks against him at paragraphs 9 and 15 of the Judgment dated 19.3.1991 passed in the above appeal.2. The appeal by the State was directed against the Judgment and Award of enhanced compensation by the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi (Reference Court). One of the grounds taken in the appeal by the State was pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Reference Court in entertaining the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The specific pound taken is that the application seeking reference said to have been made by the claimants, which bears the date 18.4.1968 was not made on the said date, but was made some time after 1.11.1973 or around the time when the reference was made to the Court on 5.4.1982 and, therefore, it was barred by time and hence the reference was incompetent.3. On the intrinsic evidence in the application presented by the ...
Smt. Roopa Reddy Vs. Prabhakar Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant12; II(1993)DMC274; ILR1993KAR2212; 1993(2)KarLJ599
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. This appeal is under S. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, dated24-10-1990 in M.C. No. 1019 of 1987 rejecting the appellant's petition filed u/S. 13(1)(1-a) and (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows:The appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband. They were married on 30-8-1974 at Bangalore as per Hindu customs. After the marriage, they lived together at Wardha in Maharashtra where the respondent was working as a lecturer. Out of the said wedlock 2 sons were born. The first son, Bharath was born on 24-11-1976 and the second son, Prathivi, was born on 22-8-1978. In the year 1980 they shifted to Thirupathi as the respondent got a job as a lecture in the S.V. University College, At the time of marriage, the petitioner was a B.Sc. graduate. After the marriage the petitioner completedher degree course in Libr...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kashimsab and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1993
Reported in: II(1993)ACC627; 1993ACJ946; [1994]80CompCas576(Kar); ILR1993KAR1991; 1992(2)KarLJ559; (1994)ILLJ500Kant
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. The appellant-insurer being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated August 20, 1992, made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bijapur, in Case No. WC. MSR. 46 of 1991 directing the appellant to make good the entire amount of compensation of Rs. 78,648 awarded for the death of Isak in the accident involving the tempo bearing registration No. KA-28-423 belonging to Yaseena Babusaba Nimbargi, respondent No. 6 herein, has come up with this appeal. 2. The appellant has mainly taken the following four grounds to attack the judgment and award appealed against. (1) The Commissioner was not justified in holding that the claimants, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 herein, were the legal representatives of the deceased, Isak, though they failed to do so. (2) The deceased was earning only Rs. 300 per month plus batta during his employment. But the Labour Court was in error in holding without considering properly the evidence on record that he was getting Rs. 600 per mont...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balawwa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1993
Reported in: II(1993)ACC463; 1993ACJ815; ILR1993KAR1843; 1993(2)KarLJ406; (1994)ILLJ433Kant
Venkataraman, J.1. Both these Appeals arise out of an order dated 27th January, 1992 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum in CWC. SR. 18/91, awarding a compensation of Rs. 32,615/- as compensation to the widow of one Lagma Yetlappa Jathani for the death of her husband Lagma on 8.8.1990 in the course of his employment as a coolie under Respondents 1 and 2 before the Commissioner, who are the owners of a Tractor-trailer bearing No. CRA 5534, 5536 and 5337 and directing the Respondent-3-lnsurer to pay the compensation.2. M.F.A. 1015/92 is filed by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company questioning the correctness of the order directing them to pay the compensation.M.F.A. 1602/92 is filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, seeking enhancement of the compensation.3. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred by the rank they held before the Commissioner.4. The petitioner claimed compensation before the Commissioner on the allegations that her...
Vijaya Bank Vs. Nedungadi Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2181; 1992(2)KarLJ587
Shivaprakash, J.1. This First Appeal is presented by Vijaya Bank, a nationalised Bank, which was one of the defendants in the suit. The suit was instituted by the Nedungadi Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,675/-, Rs. 9700/- towards wrongful payment of the amount under a forged Draft on 29.8.1978 to the second respondent (first defendant) and a sum of Rs. 2975/- towards interest thereon at 6% per annum from 29.8.1978 till the institution of the suit.2. The parties are referred to hereinafter by their respective positions in the trial Court.3. The facts leading to the institution of the suit by the plaintiff are as follows: The first defendant opened an account on 10.8.1978 with the third defendant Bank which is a branch of the fourth defendant. At the time of opening of the account he deposited an amount of Rs. 100/. On 29.8.1978 the first defendant deposited a Demand Draft for Rs. 9700/- to his account for collection by the third defendant-Bank. The Draft was dated 28.8.1978 drawn ...
Chanda Sab Vs. Jamshed Khan and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Kant338; ILR1993KAR2197; 1993(2)KarLJ638
ORDER1. The Revision Petition is against grant of a temporary injunction restraining restitution. Petitioner is the dispossessed tenant. Respondents 1 and 2 are the present tenants in occupation. Respondent No. 3 is the owner who dispossessed the petitioner. Respondents 4 and 5 are stated to be the present owners.2. The petitioner was a tenant in regard to the suit premises under the third respondent. The third Respondent owner filed H.R.C. 175/1977 on the file of the 1 Munsiff, Mysore, on 18-3-1977 and obtained an ex parte order of eviction on 22-8-1978. By executing the said ex parte order, the third respondent evicted the petitioner from the suit premises. The petitioner thereafter, that is on 19-1-1979, filed Misc. case No. 14/1979 for setting aside the ex parte order. The ex parte order was set aside and the petitioner was permitted to contest the eviction petition. Ultimately, the eviction petition filed against the petitioner in H.R.C. 175/1977 was dismissed on 10-12-1986. The R...
Popular Bone Mills Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1993
Reported in: [1993]91STC334(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner has questioned the levy of purchase tax on the 'bone' purchased by the petitioner. The question pertains to the years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. Though the revision petition is numbered as S.T.R.P. No. 22 of 1991, we are told that the petitioner has paid court-fee governing three revision petitions. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner purchased the bone and thereafter bone meal was prepared out of the bone purchased and it was sold. There is also no dispute that the petitioner paid tax in respect of sales turnover of bone meal at 2 per cent. The revisional authority revised the order of the assessing authority and directed that the turnover of the bone purchased by the petitioner also should be taxed having regard to entry 13 of the Third Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short). 3. Entry 13 of the Third Schedule refers to 'bones and horns'. In respect of the goods stated in the Third Schedule the tax is a ...
Mrs. Laxmi Bai and Others Vs. Kamalaksha G. Nayak and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant174; ILR1993KAR1936; 1993(2)KarLJ419
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by defendants 1 to 4 in O.S. 201 of 1985, on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore against his order dated 24th September, 1992, allowing I.A. No. VIII and permitting the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) to amend the plaint, as sought for by him.2. Respondents 2 to 4 herein are defendants 5 to 7 in the lower Court. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to by the rank they hold in the lower Court.3. The facts, giving raise to this petition, may briefly be stated as hereunder:The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. 201/85, on the file of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, against the defendants, who are the wife and children of one late K. Rama Rao for a declaration that he is entitled to continue in possession of the suit property by virtue of part performance of an agreement to sell dated 5-5-1978 executed by Rama Rao and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›