Karnataka Court July 1993 Judgments
Krishnappa Vs. Yeshodamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3375; 1993(3)KarLJ309
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. The Revision petitioner was plaintiff in Original Suit No. 557 of 1980 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. That was asuit filed by him for specific performance of an agreement to sell in his favour and alternatively for refund of the amount. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant died and plaintiff filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. for bringing on record the legal representatives of the first defendant. That application was allowed on 25.3.1988. The case appears to have been posted to 6.4.1988 and from that dated to 7.4.1988. The learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to implead the legal representatives ordered to be brought on record as per orders on I.A.No. 21 passed on 21.3,1988 and the effect of not carrying out the amendment in the plaint must be taken as the failure on the part of the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of deceased defendant-1 on record and therefore the suit as against th...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Narayana Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2274
Vasanthakumar, J. 1.1 Writ Appeals Nos. 1612/89, 1641/89, 1642/89 and 2018/89 are filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. W.A.No. 1612/89 is directed against the order dated 12.6.89 passed in W.P.No. 36866/82. W.As. 1641/89 and 1642/89 are directed against the order dated 12.6.1989 passed in W.P.Nos. 36814-36815/82. 1.2. W.A.No. 2018/89 is directed against the order dated 3.7.89 passed in W.P.No. 21287/81. One T.G. Bhodha Shetty applied for variation of stage carriage permit for operating two more additional trips between Bangalore to Balathotapalli lying on Inter State Route, which was granted by State Transport Authority, Tamil Nadu and countersigned by State Authority. K.S.R.T.C., objected for the counter-signature as the route lies in Anekal Pocket scheme. KSRTC filed a Writ Petition against the variation countersigned by the S.T.A. and the Petition was numbered as W.P. 36806/82. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on the orders passed in W.P. Nos. 36814/82 a...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Various Private Operato ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC511
R.V. Vasanthakumar, J.1. Writ Appeals Nos. 1612/89, 1641/89, 1642/89 and 2018/ 89 are filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. W.A. No. 1612/89 is directed against the order dated 12-6-1989 passed in W.P. No. 36866/82. W.As. 1641/89 and 1642/89 are directed against the order dated 12-6-1989 passed in W.P. Nos. 36814-36815/82.1.2 W.A. No. 2018/89 is directed against the order dated 3-7-89 passed in W.P. No 21287/81. One T.G. Bhodha Shetty applied for variation of state carriage permit for operating two more additional trips between Bangalore to Balathotapalli lying on Inter State route, which was granted by State Transport Authority Tamil Nadu and countersigned by State Authority. K.S.R.T.C., objected for the counter-signature as the route lies in Anekal Pocket Scheme. K.S.R.T.C. filed a Writ Petition against the variation countersigned by the S.T.A. and the petition was numbered as W.P. 36806/82. The Learned Single Judge placing reliance on the orders passed in W.P. Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Tobacco Trading Co. Vs. Labour Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3378; 1993(3)KarLJ219
ORDERSadashiva, J.1. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are three Industries engaged in the business of tobacco processing at Nippani. They have sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 4.4.1985 passed by the first respondent in No. LOB/NFH/CR-55/84-85 produced at Annexure-B, by which the petitioners are directed to pay wages for National Holidays to the employees, who were working in their establishments.2. The contention of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions is that, the order at Annexure-B is without jurisdiction as the first respondent has no power of adjudication under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1963 and the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called 'the Act' and 'the Rules', respectively). Elaborating the said contention Sri R.Gururajan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that, in view of the objection raised by the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Dondusa Nemasa Baddi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: 1993(2)ALT(Cri)557; ILR1993KAR2420; 1993(3)KarLJ203
Hiremath, J.1. The accused has challenged in this Appeal his conviction by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, under Section 34 of the Karnataka Excise Act, Sections 17, 18 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act for short), Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, and has applied under I.A.I, for bail. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offences under Sections 17/18 of the NDPS Act; R.I for 5 years and fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act; R.I. for 5 years for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs.8,000/- for the offence under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.2. To invoke the various provisions of the NDPS Act, it is the prosecution allegation that ...
Tag this Judgment!Papabai Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3293; 1994(1)KarLJ577
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. The appellant who was the owner of land in R.S.No. 1627/2A to an extent of 2 acres 2.7 guntas situated in Athani, Belgaum District, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 5.9.1988 made by the learned Civil Judge, Athani, has approached this Court in this Appeal seeking higher compensation for the land acquired.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.3. The undisputed facts as disclosed by the judgment under Appeal are that by a Preliminary Notification dated 27.10.1975 published on 6th November, 1975, the land in question came to be acquired for a public purpose, to wit, construction of Government Quarters for Judicial Department. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per acre by his award dated 28.8.1981. Not being satisfied with the award, the appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short) for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination....
Tag this Judgment!Muttamma Vs. Nagamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2352; 1993(3)KarLJ351
Hiremath, J. 1. Heard. Admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether dismissing the suit even on preliminary issue is only an appealable order and not a Decree? 2. Heard on merits as well by consent of both the Counsel on record. The original suit was filed by the appellants-plaintiffs for as many as four reliefs, the first and the third being one for declaration of title of the' plaintiffs over the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs also added in their prayer for correction of Hissa Survey Map and other land records and rectification of the entries in the Record of Rights. The fourth one was an omnibus prayer praying for any other relief. The trial Court framed the issue of maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act among other issues but disposed of the suit on hearing on issue No.2 as a preliminary issue. Because the prayer is one ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandrappa Vs. Nagarathna Bai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2511; 1993(3)KarLJ192
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 1-3-1993 passed by the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore under Section 29(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in H.R.C.No. 602/1988. By the said order the learned Additional Small Causes Judge directed the respondent (instant petitioner) to put the landlord in vacant possession of the schedule premises within two months from the date of the order.2. I have heard the learned Counsels on either side.3. The point for consideration is as to whether the order in question in this Revision Petition is just and proper.4. It is seen that by an order dated 21-3-1992 the lower Court had directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 5800/-, the same being the arrears of rent from 7-5-1987 to 7-3-1992 at the rate of Rs. 100/- p.m. It appears that the tenant had deposited Rs. 6000/- on 2-6-1992 and the said sum covered the rent upto 7-5-1992. However, the respondent had f...
Tag this Judgment!Shellya Plastics Industry Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-23-1993
Reported in: 2004(174)ELT431(Kar)
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. These petitions coming up for orders today, by consent of parties, finally disposed of.In all these petitions, the petitioners are manufacturers of HDPE/PP tapes or strips, HDPE/PP Fabrics - laminated and unlaminated, HDPE/PP Woven Sacks (hereinafter together referred to as the said goods). The 'said goods' are exigible to Central Excise Duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The levy, assessment and collection of said duty is regulated by the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Earlier the said goods were covered under the Tariff Item 15A(1) and 15A(2) of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 15A(1) related to plastic materials in primary form and 15A(2) related to articles of plastic. Subsequently Tariff Item 15A(2) was amended and thereafter HDPE Woven sacks which was not one of the specified items in Item 15A(2) was relegated to Tariff Item 68.3. After the Central Excise Tarif...
Tag this Judgment!Fahimunnisa Vs. Additional Secry., Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC129
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This matter is taken up for final hearing by consent of Counsel for petitioner and respondent.2. The petitioner is the holder of the Auto-rickshaw Cab Permit covered by a 1991 Model vehicle bearing No. KA 01/1985.3. The petitioner made an application on 21.6.1993 for replacing the said vehicle by a 1985 model vehicle bearing No. MH 09/D 378. The said application was made under Section 83(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with Rule 79(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The respondent has issued an endorsement dated 26.6.1993, as per Annexure-A, rejecting the said request, on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority had by Resolution No. 223/90-91 dated 27-2-1991, imposed a condition that the vehicle proposed to be covered under the permit should not be more than two years old on the date of obtaining the permit and that the permit was obtained on 19-7-1991 wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »