Karnataka Court March 1995 Judgments
Sripal Vs. Adappa Babu Mogadum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1464; 1995(2)KarLJ216
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition will have to be allowed on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court reported in the case of P.K. UNNI v. NIRMALA INDUSTRIES AND ORS., wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows:-'There is no inconsistency between the two sets of provisions prescribing different periods of limitation. Such inconsistency can arise only if obedience of one provision will result in disobedience of the other. While Rule 92(2) requires a deposit to be made within 30 days from the date of sale, Article 127 requires an application contemplated under Rule 89 to be made within 60 days from the date of sale. The deposit must necessarily precede the application for no application under Rule 89 can be made except on depositing the amount in Court. Further, the words of the statutes being clear, explicit and unambiguous, there is no scope to have recourse to external aid for their construction'.2. The facts very briefly are the petitioner is the ...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadharappa Vs. Basavaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant155; I(1996)DMC194; ILR1995KAR2642; 1995(5)KarLJ134
ORDER1. Though the matter is listed for admission to-day, with consent of both the counsel, it is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner is the father of the respondent. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 26/92. He has instituted the said suit against his father for partition and separate possession of his share in the coparcenary properties. The defendant has resisted the said suit on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim partition in the joint family properties since he was not born to him. Therefore, he filed I. A. No. 8 under Order 26, Rule 10A r/w Section 151 C.P.C. for appointment of a Commissioner for purpose of blood test and genetic finger printing test of the plaintiff to find out whether he is his son. The said application was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that he could not be compelled to undergo the test as it was violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The learned Munsiff having upheld the said objection r...
Tag this Judgment!Kanchanaganga Chemical Industries Vs. Mysore Chipboards Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1995
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas646(Kar); ILR1995KAR977; 1995(2)KarLJ85
R.V. Vasanthakumar, J.1. This petition arises out of an action initiated for winding up of the respondent-company (hereinafter called 'the company') under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The question that arises for consideration in this company petition is about the exercise of the powers of the company court in respect of a petition filed under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956), even before issuing notice regarding admission. 3. The petitioner claims to be a creditor of the respondent-company and has caused a notice dated December 3, 1994, to be served on the company. Even though there is no mention in the notice that the same has been issued under section 434(1)(a) of the Act there is a mention that the same be treated as a statutory notice under section 434 of the Act. There is a demand for payment of debt. After the expiry of the statutory period this company petition has been presented for windin...
Tag this Judgment!Payappa Jakkappa Waghe Vs. Jayapal Shripal Badanekai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1413; 1995(6)KarLJ107
Bharuka, J.1. This Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs who had filed a suit in 1961 seeking a direction upon the defendants to close the pit or trenches dug up by them in-between their lands R.S. Nos. 371/1 and 337/3 and also for restraining them from obstructing the plaintiffs from passing over those lands with their carts and cattle. Though the suit was decreed by the trial Court, but, the said Judgment and decree has been reversed by the lower Appellate Court thereby dismissing the suit.2. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners of RS No. 375 and plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 are the owners of RS No. 376/A and 376. According to the plaintiffs there is a way marked as 'A.B.D.C.D.E.F.G.H.I.' as shown in the plaintiffs' sketch map which leads from Sadalaga Village to the land of the plaintiffs. The said way as per the map passes through 27 Survey Numbers including Survey Nos. 371/1, 377/3 owned by the defendants. Admittedly, only a part of the claimed way lying between the points G and ...
Tag this Judgment!Brindavan Bangle Stores Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1391
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. In these petitions, the question raised is, whether the circular issued by the Commissioner that plastic bangles and glass bangles attract tax under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 ('the Act', for short) at the rate of 2 per cent with effect from May 1, 1992, as per serial numbers 30 and 54 of the list appended to the Government Notification No. FD-CET92(1) dated April 30, 1992. Entry 30 reads as 'glass sheets and all articles made of glass'. Entry 54 reads as 'Plastic sheets, granules and articles made from all kinds and all forms of plastic including articles made of polypropylene, polystyrene and lime materials'. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the decisions in [1976] 37 STC 33 (Orissa) (State of Orissa v. Janata Medical Stores); [1983] 53 STC 264 (AP) [App.] (Shankar Bangle Stores v. State of Andhra Pradesh); [1994] 92 STC 450 (Ker) [Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. K. Ummul Kulsu ...
Tag this Judgment!Seetharam Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1353
ORDERRaveendran J,1. In all these Cases, the petitioners are holders of stage carriage permits issued when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force. They had put vehicles owned by others to operate under their permits.Having regard to the provisions of the 1939 Act, it was not necessary that vehicles covered by the permits should be owned by the permit holders. After the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) came into force the Transport Authorities insisted that the vehicles covered by the permits, should be owned by the permit holders. When petitioners, applied for renewal of their permits, the Transport Authorities issued Endorsements or passed Resolutions requiring that vehicles covered by the petitioners' permits should be duly registered in their own names. The petitioners were also informed that they will not be permitted to operate vehicles standing in the names of others against permits (vide Annexure-A dated 7.6.1990 in W.P.13312/90; Annexure-B dated 23.2.1990 in W.P. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Jingra Moolya Vs. Balakrishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1825; 1995(6)KarLJ449
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This Appeal has been filed by the defendants Nos.1 & 2. The suit is one for grant of permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with the suit land in Sy.No. 217 as fully described in the schedule to the plaint. The judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit has been reversed by the lower appellate Court.2. As is evident from the pleadings of the parties and the findings of the Courts below, the plaintiff and defendant-3 being brothers are the owners of the suit land as patta holders. This fact is also evident from the patta extract Ex.P1. The contesting first defendant, who is the appellant has prayed for the grant of relief on the ground that he has been granted occupancy right by the Tribunal under its order dated 31.5.1977 Ex.D1 pursuant to the powers conferred under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short 'the Act') and as such he is in lawful possession of the same. The order of the Tribunal Ex.D...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. D.P. Divakar Vs. Chairman/Personel Managing Director, Kudremukh I ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: II(1996)ACC62; 1996ACJ7; ILR1995KAR2302; 1995(4)KarLJ346
Saldanha, J.1. This is an Appeal, which creates a rather delicate situation for the Court and raises, once more a situation whereby the Court is required to almost bend over backwards for purposes of moulding a relief within the framework of the law. Though the issue appears to be relatively simple, namely, the question as to whether under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act the heirs of the deceased employee are entitled to compensation in the light of the unusual facts of this case, the time frame itself and the paucity of evidence before the trial Court have seriously complicated the matter. The appellant, in the year 1980, was employed as a supervisor with the first respondent-Company. At the relevant time, his salary was Rs. 801.80 per month. He was deputed to visit Bangalore in connection with some official duties and, in the course of this visit, that too on a Sunday, he suddenly died of cardiac arrest. His widow who is the present appellant No. 1, on her behalf and...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. D.P. Divakar and ors. Vs. the Chairman/Personnel Managing Directo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1995
Reported in: I(1997)ACC72
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is an appeal which creates a rather delicate situation for the Court and raises, once more a situation whereby the Court is required to almost bend over backwards for purposes of moulding a relief within the framework of the law. Though the issue appears to be relatively simple, namely, the question as to whether under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act the heirs of the deceased employee are entitled to compensation in the light of the unusual facts of this case, the time frame itself and the paucity of evidence before the Trial Court have seriously complicated the matter. The appellant, in the year 1980, was employed as a supervisor with the first respondent-company. At the relevant time, his salary was Rs. 801.80 per month. He was deputed to visit Bangalore in connection with some official duties and, in the course of this visit, that too on a Sunday, he suddenly died of cardiac arrest. His widow who is the present appellant No. 1, on her behalf...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Mahadeva, S/O Machiganna and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)182; 1995CriLJ2741; ILR1995KAR1291; 1995(2)KarLJ100
Mirdhe, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 30-6-1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in S.C. 8/91 acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148 and 302 r/w. 49 IPC. 2. We have heard learned Govt. Advocate Sri. Rajagopal and learned counsel for the accused Shri. Hasmath Pasha and perused the records of the case. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 29-7-1990 at about 10 p.m. there was an altercation between P.W. 1 and deceased Puttaswamy as Puttaswamy was not allowing P.W. 1 to go to her mother's place and he was abusing her and at that time all the accused went inside the house of P.W. 1 dragged the deceased Puttaswamy out of the house, surrounded him and started assaulting him. A-1 and A-2 assaulted with clubs, A-3 with Kavagolu, A-4 with kudlu and A-8 with stone and A-5 and A-7 along with one Putti pushed her when she went to the rescue of her husband an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »