Karnataka Court January 1995 Judgments
The State of Karnataka and Others Vs. the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant143; ILR1995KAR2483; 1995(5)KarLJ305
ORDER1. All these writ petitions which have been filed, by State of Karnataka and the Assistant Commissioner, against the order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and respondent No. 2 in all these writ petition is the same in which raises common questions of law to the effect whether the Assistant Commissioner could review and recall his order dated 27-4-1984, whereby the Assistant Commissioner granted the permission to respondent No. 2 to purchase the lands in dispute. Hence these petitions are being disposed of by one common order.2. By these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari or issuance of any other appropriate writ or direction for quashing the order dated 13-2-1987 passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeals Nos. 270 to 273 of 1986 copy of which is Annexure-B to the writ petition.3. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2 had moved an application under Sec. 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of permission ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. TajuddIn Abdul Rahim Karanche
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-1995
Reported in: 1995ACJ837; (1996)IIILLJ1016Kant
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. This is an Appeal preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and it raises issues of some consequence particularly in view of the grievance projected that due to absence of specific guidelines and parameters which are to be defined by this Court, that indiscriminate orders are being passed in compensation proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the total absence of any standards with regard to the manner in which the compensation is being assessed has resulted is some runaway orders, and it is therefore imperative that the methodology to be adopted by the authority to be specified. The present case is one more instance where an order has been indiscriminately passed, without any reason having been specified meaning thereby reasons that pass legal sanction. That the claimant may have sustained some injuries and therefore qualifies for compensation is not disputed by the Insurance Company but what is basically contended, and to my mind with conside...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Shankuntala Bhat Vs. Ajit Kumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant293; ILR1995KAR634; 1995(2)KarLJ599
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the decisions reported in : AIR1987Kant1 (K. Shantharam v. A. Rama Amin) and : ILR1993KAR3359 (Panalal Jain v. Brhmadev Sharma), submitted that when ever jural relationship between the parties is in dispute, the Court has to decide that issue along with the main petition, as otherwise it would amount to deciding the question of title as a preliminary issue. In Panalal Jain v. Brhmadev Sharma, : ILR1993KAR3359 this Court has opined that whenever there is denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, the matter would require substantial evidenceand it would not be proper for the court to tryit as a preliminary issue.2. In the instant case the eviction petition is filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act by the respondent-landlord. The petitioner disputes the jural relationship. In other words, she denies that the respondent is her landlord. Acc...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. United Paper Machine Process and Service and Others Vs. Canara Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant328; 1995(2)KarLJ132
1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. This matter was argued onmerits for some time after which, pursuant to a suggestion from the Court that the appellants should put forward a reasonable proposal and pay up the amounts due from him, various reasons were set out in support of the request that if the appellants pays to the bank a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- within one month from today, that the court should afford him one year's time to pay up the balance amount due from him. This application was seriously opposed by the bank's learned advocate who submitted that even after the passing of the decree, the appellants have not made any payments save and except Rs. One Lakh that was paid recently after direction from this court and that consequently, no interference is called for with the judgment. He further submitted that having regard to the trace record of the appellants, that it is not a case in which the court should grant any further time as it would work to the prejudice of the...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Balkis Khan Vs. Sri Shahid Pasha (Alias) Syed Pasha and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant386; ILR1995KAR647; 1995(2)KarLJ594
ORDER1. The present revision application has been filed by the subsequent purchaser, being the present landlord challenging the order dated 20-9-1988 passed by the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bangalore setting aside an ex parte order of eviction dated 27-3-1985 passed in H.R.C. No. 3006 of 1984 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was not validly served with the notice in the said proceedings.2. The first respondent was a tenant under the second respondent in respect of the schedule shop premises carrying on business of carpentry therein since 1976. The second respondent filed an eviction petition against respondent No. 1 under S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) inter alia on the ground of personal necessity. The said application was allowed ex parte and on 8-7-1985 delivery of possession was taken through the process of the Court in Execution Case No. 2298 of 1985. Subsequently, by a registered sale deed dated 31-7-1987, the said premises...
Tag this Judgment!Monnappa Vs. Secretary, Government of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1206; 1995(2)KarLJ188
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This petition is directed against the order dated 26.2.1994 passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing the revision petition of respondent-3 and setting aside the order dated 4.1.92 passed by the Tahasildar, Somawarpet, in No. JAGA:2011:82-83. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he has first filed a revision under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which application was dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore, he has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Annexure-A dated 26.2.94 and that of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 28.12.94 Annexure-C.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision and the order contained in Annexure-A is without jurisdiction. Elaborating his arguments the learned Counsel submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Aktiengesellschaft Vs. Insotex (India) Limited and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant69
ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order rejecting an application under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act by the Company Law Board. The first respondent in the appeal is an Indian Company by name Insotex (India) Ltd.,2. The first respondent filed an application before the Company Law Board under S. 111 of the Companies Act alleging that they purchased 13,600 shares of the second respondent company from the appellant which is a German Company and a non-resident company, under an agreement between them dt. 1-9-1989 for a total consideration of Rs. 13,60,000/-. The first respondent Insotex (India) Limited duly lodged transfer Instruments together with share certificates with the second respondent company on 4-9-1989. Since the transaction involved transfer of share by a non-resident company, permission of the Reserve Bank of India was obtained subject to certain terms and conditions stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India. The time granted by the Reserve Batik, of India w...
Tag this Judgment!Aeg - Aktiengesellschaft Vs. Insotex (India) Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas677a(Kar); ILR1995KAR796
P. Krishna Moorthy, J.1. The appeal arises out of the an order rejecting as application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act by the Company Law Board. The first respondent in the appeal is an Indian Company by name Insotex (India) Ltd. 2. The first respondent filed an application before the Company Law Board under Section 111 of the Companies Act alleging that they purchased 13,600 shares of the second respondent company from the appellant which is a German Company and a non-resident company, under an agreement between them dated 1-9-1989 for a total Consideration of Rs. 13,60,000/-. The first respondent Insotex (India) Limited duly lodged transfer. Instruments together with share certificates with the second respondent company on 4.9.1989. Since the transaction involved transfer of share by a non-resident company, permission of the Reserve Bank of India was obtained subject to certain terms and conditions stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India. The time granted by the Reserve Bank...
Tag this Judgment!Aeg-aktiengesellschaft Vs. Insotex (India) Limited and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas649(Kar); 1995(2)KarLJ617
P. Krishna Moorthy, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order rejecting an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act by the Company Law Board. The first respondent in the appeal is an Indian company by name Insotex (India) Ltd. 2. The first respondent filed an application before the Company Law Board under section 111 of the Companies Act alleging that they purchased 13,600 shares of the second respondent company from the appellant which is a German company and a non-resident company, under an agreement between them dated September 1, 1989, for a total consideration of Rs. 13,60,000. The first respondent, Insotex (India) Limited, duly lodged transfer instruments together with share certificates with the second respondent company on September 4, 1989. Since the transaction involved transfer of shares by a non-resident company, permission of the Reserve Bank of India was obtained subject to certain terms and conditions stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India. The time granted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalithadri Coffee Estate and Others Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Office ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: (1995)127CTR(Kar)92; ILR1995KAR753; [1995]213ITR602(KAR); [1995]213ITR602(Karn); 1995(2)KarLJ570
ORDER OF STAY--High court granting interim order of stay.Ratio :The granting of an interim order of stay preventing recovery of the amount of tax determined against the assessee, did not disable the assessee concerned from making the payment of the amount so determined as a measure of abundant caution if he was otherwise keen to avoid the imposition of a liability by way of penalty.Application :Also to current assessment years.Constitution of India art 226 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »