Karnataka Court January 1995 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.
Shanthabai and Others Vs. Shekappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC506; 1995ACJ974; [1995]84CompCas796(Kar); ILR1995KAR1637; 1995(2)KarLJ268
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. The question raised in this appeal relates to the extent of liability of the insurance company to indemnify the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act to passengers travelling in a car which met with an accident. 2. One Bujangappa Gouda Patil, son of Ninganagouda, died in a motor accident that took place on December 5, 1988, involving the jeep CTJ 2603 in which he was travelling. His wife and children claimed compensation. After contest, the Tribunal found that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving and that the claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,53,000 as compensation after deducting the interim compensation paid. But, on the basis of the endorsement in the policy, the Tribunal held that the liability of the insurance company is confined to Rs. 10,000. The claimants have come up in appeal, challenging this part of the award. 3. When the appeal came up for hearing, I directed counsel for the insurance company to produce ...
B. Muni Reddy Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, V Circle ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC136; ILR1995KAR615
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'). He trades in various agricultural produce including cereals such as Ragi and its product Ragi flour. For the assessment year 1993-94 Ragi flour has been subjected to tax at the rate of 8 per cent and the turnover thereof is also subjected to turnover tax at the rate 1.25 per cent. 2. In the normal course when the petitioner is questioning an order of assessment, this Court would have relegated the parties to avail of the remedies as provided under the statute. However, in this case a clarification has been issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to the effect that Ragi flour is taxable under section 5(1) of the Act and consequently the turnover tax is also attracted. The relevant portion of the clarification reads as follows : 'Ragi flour Clr. Cr. 841/89-90 dated March 16, 1990 :- While Ragi is exempt under entry 40A of the Fifth Schedule, Ragi flour canno...
Vishnu Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR631; 1995(6)KarLJ95
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioner was nominated to the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent Society by the 1st respondent in the year 1991, in exercise of the power under Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (the Act for short). The petitioner was later elected as the President of the Society on 3.5.1994 for the year 94-95. Later, the 1st respondent Government issued a Notification dated 21.12.1994 withdrawing the nominations of Directors made all over the State, by Annexure-C, resulting in the petitioner ceasing to be a nominated member and consequently, as the President of the Board of Directors came to an end. The petitioner questions the Notification dated 21.12.1994 - Annexure-C.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the removal of all the nominated Directors en masse by the 1st respondent is illegal. He further contends that the petitioner, on election as the President of the Board of Directors was entitled to continue for one...
Lakshmaiah Vs. Superintending Engineer (Elecl), Keb
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR696
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This group of Petitions basically concerns one common point of grievance which has been canvassed by the various petitioners. Barring individual differences which are inevitable in view of the fact that the petitioners have joined service at different points of time, what is sought to be contended is that they all belong to one common cadre as employees of the Electricity Board and that they consist of meter readers, overseers and operators. It is undisputed that this cadre or category of employees is the one that is immediately below the next higher promotional category namely the post of Junior Engineers. It is from this particular class of employees or rather grade of employees, that promotion to 35% of the posts of Junior Engineers are made by the Board. It is necessary for me to record here that in leading to this common pool, we have two broad streams which have been categorised as technical and non-technical. As far as technical persons are concerned, th...
Sri. R. Patrigowda Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant372; ILR1995KAR910; 1995(2)KarLJ602
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate.2. The facts of the case in brief are that, according to the petitioner a total holding of250 acres and 17 guntas situated in Eshapur and Arakanal villages in Harappanahalh Taluk in the district of Bellary belonged to the petitioner's deceased father that is on the coming into force of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Smt. Kalamma R., filed a declaration under S. 66 of the Act and thereafter by order dated 20-10-1981 Annexure-A to the writ petition the Tribunal respondent No. 2 declared and held that declarant and his family was possessed of 29 acres 42 guntas of excess land. In pursuance of order dated 20-10-1981, the Tahsildar on 2-8-1982 passed an ...order issued a notice calling upon the tenure-holder to surrender the land to an extent of 29 acres 42 guntas out of certain plots specified therein. The petitioner's case is that on a writ petition, i.e., W.P. No. 29249/82 being filed therefrom, i.e.., orde...
Smt. Sofia Begum and ors. Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC443; 1995ACJ433; 1995(3)KarLJ146; (1995)IILLJ1158Kant
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned counsel. The solitary ground on which the Claims Tribunal refused to consider the appellant's claim is that she has already received a sum of Rs.55,652 from the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Hubli. Relying on the provisions of Section 128(1) of the Railways Act, the Tribunal held that it is not permissible for the claimant who has once received compensation to claim compensation from the Tribunal on a second occasion in respect of the same accident.2. The appellant's learned advocate submitted that she had not preferred any claim before the Workmen's Compensation Authority and that the railway had on their own accord, deposited the amount whereupon the authority issued notice to the appellant, recorded her statement and disbursed the payment to her. His contention; is that she has not made any claim and is, therefore, not precluded from agitating the compensation claimed before the Railways Claims Tribunal. To th...
Smt. Sofia Bebum and ors. Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR582
Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel. The solitary ground on which the Claims Tribunal refused to consider the appellants claim is that she has already received a sum of Rs. 55,652/- from the Labour Officer cum Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Hubli. Relying on the provisions of Section 128(1) of the Railways Act, the Tribunal held that it is not permissible for the claimant who has once received compensation to claim compensation from the Tribunal on a second occasion in respect of the same accident.2. The appellant's learned Advocate submitted that she had not preferred any claim before the Workmen's Compensation Authority and that the Railways had on their own account deposited the amount whereupon the Authority issued notice to the appellant, recorded her statement and disbursed the payment to her. His contention is that she has not made any 'claim' and is therefore not precluded from agitating the compensation claimed before the Railway Claims Tribunal. To this e...
Saibanna Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1137; 1995(2)KarLJ54
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is a set of Appeals preferred by a group of agriculturists whose lands were acquired by the State for a public purpose, namely, an irrigation project. The Appeals are basically for purposes of obtaining enhanced compensation and proceed on the basis that this Court has enhanced the compensation in certain other similar cases. There is a considerable delay in the presentation of these Appeals. Mr. Shankar, learned Counsel who represents the appellants in all these cases has filed the necessary affidavits in support of the I.As. for condonation of delay in each case. Basically, each of the appellants contends that the agricultural lands which were the source of livelihood have been acquired by the State, as a result of which the appellants had to migrate elsewhere in search of jobs. Admittedly, from a reading of the affidavits that have been filed, what emerges is that the appellants are all small agriculturists, obviously coming from a rural background and,...
Aruna Bai Vs. Surendra Babu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)510; 1995CriLJ1904; ILR1995KAR601; 1995(3)KarLJ142
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed under S. 397 read with S. 401, Cr.P.C. by the complainant in P.C.R. No. 7/92 on the file of the learned Munsiff and JMFC, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore District, challenging the order dated 7-11-1992 by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint. 2. The facts leading to the dismissal of the complaint by the learned Magistrate are as under : The revision petitioner had lent an amount of Rs. 22,000/- on 20-10-1991 to the respondent and the respondent had issued a cheque bearing No. 0877901 dated 30-11-1991 for Rs. 17,000/- towards the same. The revision petitioner presented it for encashment on 11-4-1992 and it came to be dishonoured on the same day with endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The revision petitioner issued a notice of demand on 23-4-1992 and the same came to be served on the respondent on 25-4-1992. As no payment was made within the statutory period of 15 days from the date of service of notice, revision petitioner filed a comp...
Sangopantha Traymbakro Patil Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1132; 1995(2)KarLJ81
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This group of Appeals pertains to certain litigants whose lands have been acquired and who desire to prefer the present set of Appeals praying for enhancement of the compensation amounts. They have averred in the Appeal Memo that since they are very poor persons and can hardly afford to pay the prescribed Court fee, that they have paid a certain amount in each case and and they have undertaken that the balance amount may be recovered after the Court determines the dispute. Basically, what the appellants submit is that they should not be deprived of the right of appeal merely because of their incapacity to tender the prescribed Court fees at this point of time, though they do not ask this Court to absolve them from their ultimate obligation to pay the amount.2. Mr. S.P. Shankar, learned Counsel who represents the appellants places reliance on a Decision of the Supreme Court reported in : AIR1985SC1576 , Bhag Singh v. Union Territory wherein, the Supreme Court had occ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »