Karnataka Court September 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.
Shiddaramappa Veerappa Govishwar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1993
Reported in: II(1994)ACC309; ILR1993KAR3367
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20-9-1989 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad in Arbitration Case No. 2/1987. By the said order the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the instant petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this Revision Petition, briefly stated, are as under:The petitioner was the owner of a truck bearing registration No. MEZ 7399. He had insured the said truck with the respondents. The estimated value of the said truck was stated to be Rs. 2,50,000/-. The duration of the insurance policy was for the period from 24-2-1985 to 24-2-1986.3. When this was so, the truck in question was involved in a fire accident on 8-5-1985. Thereafter the petitioner put in his claim with the respondents. After protracted negotiation, it appears that the Insurance Company was ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs. 1,69,500/- in full satisfaction of the claim ...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.T. Somasekharaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: 1994ACJ657; [1994(68)FLR402]; ILR1993KAR3318
Hiremath, J. 1. Heard. The award of the Commissioner is challenged by the appellant - K. S. R. T. C. contending that the Commissioner has committed an error in awarding the compensation, that he has awarded ignoring the fact that the respondent-workman did accept Rs. 6,635/- offered by the appellant and at any rate, the Commissioner ought to have considered the fact that the workman still continues in service and has not suffered any loss in income or loss of service. 2. The workman has filed cross-objections contending that the award made by the Commissioner is not adequate and that he is entitled to compensation treating the injuries suffered by him as a total disability. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, that the workmen respondent, a driver under the appellant - K. S. R. T. C. was driving the vehicle on 26.12.91 from Tiptur to Bullegatta and at about 6.00 p.m. when the driver sighted another vehicle coming opposite to him, he had to swerve it to the left s...
Karnataka State R.T.C. Vs. B.T. Soma Sekharaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1993
Reported in: 1(1994)ACC344
D.P. Hiremath, J.1. Heard. The award of the Commissioner is challenged by the appellant - K.S.R.T.C. contending that the Commissioner has committed an error in awarding the compensation that he has awarded ignoring the fact that the respondent-workman did accept Rs. 6,635/- offered by the appellant and at any rate, the Commissioner ought to have considered the fact that the workman still continues in service and has not suffered any loss in income or loss of service.2. The workman has filed cross-objections contending that the award made by the Commissioner is not adequate and that he is entitled to compensation treating the injuries suffered by him as a total disability. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, that the workman respondent, a driver under the appellant-K.S.R.T.C. was driving the vehicle on 26.12.91 from Tiptur to Bullegatta and at about 6.00 p.m. when the driver sighted another vehicle coming opposite to him, he had to swerve it to the left side and ...
Wipro Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR347]; ILR1993KAR3237; 1994(1)KarLJ174; (1995)ILLJ120Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner in this Petition filed under Article 2126 of the constitution, has sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order No. E/4/93 dated nil passed by respondent and communicated tot he petitioner vide letter dated 15.12.1993 in NO, KN/PF/ENFV/TMKDVN/1497/KN/14294/93, Produced at Annexure-A. 2 The question in controversy in this petition is ' Whether the petitioner-establishment is branch unit of M/s Wipro Ltd., Bombay a covered and exempted establishment under Code No. MH/948 and hence is not entitled for infancy protection in terms of section 16(1)(d) of the employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act') In order to resolve the aforesaid controversy, it is necessary to state a few facts as stated by the petitioner, which are as follows : That M/s Wipro Ltd., is a Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Bombay, hereinafter called as 'the Co...
Smt. Ratna V. Kushnoor Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant94; ILR1993KAR3506; 1994(1)KarLJ220
ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as a member of the Gulbarga District Forum constituted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Her appointment was made as per the Notification dated 10-8-1989. This Notification also stated that the jurisdiction of the said forum shall extend to four revenue Districts of Gulbarga, Raichur, Bellary and Bidar. A formal order of appointment was subsequently made on 21-9-1989 as per the Notification of the said date. However, on 24th April, 1990 Bidar Forum was constituted by a notification, consisting of the same President and members including the petitioner. By another Notification dated 8th November, 1991 the District forum for the District of Bidar was notified as consisting of Mr. Byrappa as the President and two members Mr. Kashinath Rao Pule and Smt. Guramma. Obviously this was pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court directing that each of the District shall have an independent District Forum.2. On 15th November, 1991, the...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. S. Venkatasubbaraj. (Accountable Person ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR630(KAR); [1994]206ITR630(Karn)
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following two questions of law are referred for the opinion of the court :'(1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in concluding that the provisions of section 9 of the Estate Duty Act are not applicable and there was no element of gift of the share of the assessee in the properties of the Hindu undivided family in the unequal distribution of assets in the partial partition effected on June 9, 1977, even though there was no specific clause in the deed of partial partition to the effect that the deficiency of the share of the deceased would be made up in subsequent partition ?' (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that section 9(1) read with section 27(1) and section 2(15) and Explanation 2 thereof, of the Estate Duty Act are not applicable to the ...
Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Scheduled Castes a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1993
Reported in: [1994(68)FLR696]; ILR1993KAR3523; 1993(4)KarLJ402
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. The points for consideration in this Writ Petition are :-1) Whether Time Bound Advancement of pay scale given to an employee/official be construed as an 'indirect time-bound promotion'? 2) Whether the benefit of Time Bound Advancement of pay scale be extended taking into consideration the roster ordered by the Government in its order dated 27.4.1978 in view of Article 16(4) to give adequate representation to Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe persons in the matter of recruitment, seniority and promotion? 2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this Writ Petitionare: The petitioner herein is an Association of the employees ofScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in respondent HandicraftsDevelopment Corporation. The respondent is a State Undertaking, Ithas different categories of employees in its organisation. As per theCadre and Recruitment Rules of the respondent, there are differenttypes of posts to be filled up by way of direct recruitment andpromotion. Ac...
Machettira Machaiah and Others Vs. Machettira Kariappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Kant52; ILR1993KAR2673; 1993(4)KarLJ353
ORDERS. B. Majmudar, C. J.1. This Writ Appeal has been referred to a Full Bench for resolving a short question as to whether, after the enactment of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by which the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899 were repealed, anapplication can still be filed under Regulation 127 of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899, 18 years after such repeal.2. Few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at the out-set.The appellants arc the original writ petitioners who filed Writ Petition No. 4797/83 in this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 7-2-1983 passed by the 3rd respondent -- the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, Madikeri. By the said order, the 3rd respondent entertained the application filed under Regulation 127 of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899, and observed that partition of the concerned lands, which were privilege jama bane lands, can be effected. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties, came t...
K. Premananda Pai Vs. K. Gopalakrishna Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3284; 1994(1)KarLJ138
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. These petitions arise out of common order made on applications filed by the petitioner, one under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from exhibiting films in a particular theatre, and other under Order 40, Rule 1 read with Section 41 of the Arbitration Act praying for appointment of a receiver to take possession of all the assets of dissolved firm M/s. Vittaldas Pai and Sons, situate at New Chitra Talkies, Basavanagudi, Mangalore, and to seel the same and deposit the proceeds in a bank, in Arbitration Case 4 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore. The arbitration proceedings arose out of an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an arbitrator. The trial court rejected the applications holding that the court would exercise powers under Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act only after reference to arbitration is m...
M/S Malnad Construction Co., Shimoga and Others Vs. State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)ALT(Cri)119; 1994CriLJ645; ILR1993KAR3082; 1993(3)KarLJ440
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dated 7-5-1993, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 578/93, so far it relates to the rejection of their petition and with regard to imposition of Condition No. 4 for return of the building materials seized by the Police in Crime No. 455/93 of Ulsoorgate Police Station (Crime No. 1344/93 of C.O.D.). 2. The facts briefly stated leading to this petition are : The petitioners filed the petition under S. 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) for the following reliefs in the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore : (a) Return of the steel fabricated, finished and semi finished articles, seized in the case from the factory premises of the claimant's establishment to the custody of the claimants forthwith. (b) Direct the return of the demand draft seized in the case from the possession of the claimants which the claimant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »