Karnataka Court September 1995 Judgments
State of Karnataka Vs. Gurubasappa Basappa Sajjan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1175
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This is the defendant's Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3.9.1984 delivered by the Civil Judge, Bagalkot, Bijapur District, in R.A.No. 27 of 1984 (The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, representing the Government of Karnataka v. Gurubasappa Basappa Sajjan) dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and, decree dated 2.3.1984 delivered by the Munsiff, Badami, in O.S.No. 7 of 1983 (Gurubasappa s/o Basappa Sajjan v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, representing the Government of Karnataka) decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of his date of birth to be 5.3.1950 and not 28.6.1948 as shown in the School Certificate.2. The plaintiff/respondent alleges that in the School Certificate his date of birth was shown as 28.6.1948 and that the said date of birth is said to have been entered on the approximation given by his parents at the time of his admission to the primary school and that his real and exact date of birth is 5.3.1950. It had ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Leelavathi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1995
Reported in: 1997ACJ644; ILR1996KAR2867; 1996(5)KarLJ442
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. These appeals are by the insurance Company challenging the finding and order of the Tribunal fixing its liability in respect of the accident.2. It is not disputed that the vehicle involved in the accident, namely CAK 1887, was insured for the period 8.11.1986 to 7.11.1987. The accident in question occurred on 11.3.1987, out of which several claims by the passengers travelling in the said vehicle have arisen. The contention taken by the appellant before the Tribunal as well as in this appeal is that since the bus in question did not have a valid permit to ply on the road, there is violation of the terms of the policy, and as such, no liability can be foisted upon it in respect of the accident involving the vehicle. The copy of the Insurance policy, which is not disputed is produced and marked as Ex.R-1 through RW-1. Under the head limitations as to use it is stated, interalia, thus-'Use only under a Contract carriage or stage carriage permit within the meaning of the M...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore University Vs. P.K. Asha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2999; 1995(6)KarLJ455
ORDER IN ILR 1992 KAR 2862 BEING APPEALED AGAINST: Held:The candidate seeking admission to I Year B.D.S. shall passtwo year Pre-University Examination conducted by Karnataka Pre-University Examination Board with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects or an equivalent examination wherein he has studied Physics, Chemistry and Biology asoptional subjects. The combined reading of Regulations relating to admission to B.D.S. Course and the Byelaws of Examination of C.B.S.C. makes it obligatory for every applicant seekingadmission to I Year B.D.S. to have passed either two yearPre-University Course conducted by the Pre-University Board inKarnataka or SSCE conducted by CBSE with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optionals. There is no dispute that the applicant should have passed in all the subjects to become eligible even though she has not secured 50% in each subject...It iselementary principle that, to pass an examination the studentshall obtain the prescribed minimum marks in ...
Tag this Judgment!Nalina Vs. M.D., Karnataka Government Insurance Department and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ758
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 266 of 1991, on the file of M.A.C.T. No. IX, Bangalore, and, therefore, they are dealt with together.2. On 19.9.1990 at about 8.15 p.m., one Nalina was crossing the road near the Ulsoor Lake from south to north, when a. car bearing registration No. CAG 5287 came from east to west on that road and hit her. As a result of this accident, she sustained serious injuries. On the ground that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, the injured lady, Nalina, claimed a compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- only, for the injuries sustained by her in the accident before the Claims Tribunal against the respondents, who were the owner and the insurer of the car.3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the claim petition contested the claim by filing their separate written statements.4. In the course of the trial before the Tribunal, PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exhs. P-1 to P-23...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. Vs. Channawwa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ945; ILR1995KAR3520; 1996(5)KarLJ289
Hakeem, J.1. This Appeal is filed by the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, against the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the L.Rs. of one S.V.Uppin who died in the accident on 22.3.89.2. The occurrence of the accident and the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is no more in dispute. Even otherwise there is adequate material on record, which would establish that the accident and the resultant death of S.V.Uppin was on account of the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. CAI-7769.3. The claimants in turn have preferred their cross objections, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which according to them is grossly inadequate.4. The deceased was a State Government servant, working as an Excise Inspector, drawing a gross salary of Rs. 2,915/- at the time of the accident. According to the extract of service register his age is held to be 39 years. P.W.1, the wife of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gogte Minerals
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3358; [1996]220ITR29(KAR); [1996]220ITR29(Karn)
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. This is a reference arising under s. 256(1) of the IT Act. Three questions are referred for our opinion and they are as follows : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, r. 34 of the Mineral Conservation & Development Rules, 1988, incorporated w.e.f. 24th Oct., 1988, is retrospective in nature, and as such applicable to earlier agreements entered into by the mining operators with the State Government (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, r. 34 is clarificatory in nature and as such imposed no obligation in regard to leases granted earlier to the incorporation of the said provision (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction of 'pit filling expenses', claimed in the assessment, on the basis of r. 34 of the Mineral Conservation & Development Rules, 1988 ?' We are concerned in these cases with assessments pertaining to asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1983-...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ukp Vs. Malakajayya Mallayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1639; 1996(5)KarLJ379
Hakeem, J.1. This appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed against the award of enhanced compensation in respect of about 49 acres of land in Sy.Nos. 126 and 119 of Kandagal village of Bilgi Taluk in Bijapur District, acquired for submersion of Almatti Reservoir, under preliminary notification, published on 9.10.1980.2. By his award dated 19.2.1981, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,200/- per acre. Notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was served upon the claimants on 23.2.1981. An application under Section 18(1) for reference was filed by the claimants on 18.5.1981. Thereafter, reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Court only on 3.4.1986, which is far beyond the period of limitation under Section 18(2) of the Act. The only contention raised herein by the learned Government Pleader is that the reference was invalid since as it was made after ...
Tag this Judgment!Chitti Babu Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3109
ORDERVenkataraman, J1. The petitioner has filed this Petition for quashing the order dated 18.4.95 in HRC/DC/A-152-1994-95 passed by the second respondent and for a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction declaring that order dated 14.3.95 passed by the third respondent is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and to consider the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence before it in HRC/ACC(E) 274/94 and proceed with the case thereafter.2. The facts giving rise to this Petition in brief are as hereunder: The Revenue Inspector attached to the office of third respondent, House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore, gave a report dated 23.8.94 to the effect that the premises bearing No. 544, Ground Floor, First Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, had fallen vacant. The Controller issued a notice to the petitioner-landlord to show cause as to why the vacancy was not reported. The petitioner by his reply dated 30.8.94 while admitting that the premis...
Tag this Judgment!Basanagouda Channabasanagouda Patil Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ631; ILR1995KAR3124; 1995(4)KarLJ454
ORDER1. Criminal Petition 1872 of 1991 is connected with the above 31 Criminal Petitions. All these criminal petitions arise out of the common order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., 1st Court, Hubli, in C.C. No. 4638 of 1982 on 17-2-1989. 2. For appreciation of the point involved in these cases, I refer to the facts in C.C. No. 4638 of 1982 in which the common order has been passed. 3. On 7-7-1982 the charge sheet has been filed in C.C. No. 4638 of 1982 by P.S.I., Town Police, Hubli, against the petitioner-accused for offences punishable under Sections 408, 409 and 477(A), I.P.C. The matter has been pending since then, in the Court below for over eleven years. 4. This Court stayed further proceedings in this case and the connected cases on 30-10-1991. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that there is inordinate delay in the trial of the criminal case and so proceedings should be quashed. 6. It is clear from the material on record that after the accused appe...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraj Alias Kumar Alias Anand Alias Selvam Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2901; ILR1996KAR2
Rajendra Babu, J.1. This appeal and the Criminal Reference Case arise out of an order made by the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, in S.C. No. 111/92, convicting the appellant accused for charges arising under Section 302 I.P.C. sentencing him to death, but not passing any separate sentence in respect of an offence arising under Section 404 I.P.C. 2. Since Reference has been made to us in terms of Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure we proceed to refer to the parties as arrayed before the Sessions Court. 3. This case unfolds itself in the currents and cross-currents of mysteries shrouded one over another. On 18-11-1991 at about 10-30 a.m. Kenchappa-PW-1 went to his land comprised in Sy. No. 3/8 of Addur village in Anekal Taluk to have a look at his Ragi crop raised by him in the land; that to his dismay found that dogs and crows were frantically moving about in the field; that on going closer to that activity found mortal remains of a woman, to which a saree ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »