Karnataka Court November 1996 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.
M. Vijaya Kumar Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1342
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal is under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arising from the Judgment and award dated 1.8.1991 in M.V.C. Case No. 736/88 given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 8, Bangalore City awarding in total a sum of Rs. 32,500/- as compensation as against claim of Rs. 1,80,000/-. The dispute in the appeal primarily is confined to the quantum of compensation.2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 5.11.1987 at about 10.15 p.m. the claimant alongwith the petitioner in MVC No. 735/88 was returning to their respective houses situated at Magadi Road, Bangalore after viewing the second show of Kannada Movie in Savitha Theatre, Malleshwaram, Bangalore and had walked upto Central Theatre. They had boarded in an auto rikshaw bearing No. MYF 1471 in order to go to their houses. On the way the said rickshaw was proceeding from north to south in Platform road, Near Krishna Flour Mills. BTS Bus bearing No. MYF 9568 driven by the second respondent in a ra...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. N.S. Devaraja and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: II(1998)ACC338; ILR1997KAR1061
Harinath Tilhari, J. 1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been preferred by the Insurance Company, while Appeal No. 756/ 92 has been preferred by the owner and rider of the motor cycle.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in M.V.C.No.756/ 92 Sri Lingappa G., submitted and had stated in writing in the order sheet of that appeal, that in the best interest of his client, the appeal is not pressed and as such he submitted that the appeal may be dismissed as not pressed and as such that appeal No. 756/92 has been dismissed by separate order, the present appeal No. 420/92 which arises from the same judgment of motor accident Claims Tribunal, Shimoga dated 13th September, 1991 in M.V.C.No. 77/87, raises one and the sole question for determination by this Court, namely whether the Tribunal was justified and did it act according to law in holding and ordering in its award that the compensation awarded to the claimant shall be payable by respondents 1 ...
Kashmir D. Gudinho and anr. Vs. Suresh Kulkarni and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ1427; ILR1997KAR1491
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 arises from the Judgment and award dated June 19th, 1996, by the learned District Judge/Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Karwar, in M.V.C. 344 of 1987, dismissing the Claimants' claim petition for compensation.2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 27.2.1987, at about 8.45 p.m., a motor vehicle accident did take place on National High way No. 17 at Baitkol.The case of the claimants is that deceased, son of the claimants was travelling as pillion rider on a Motor-cycle driven by respondent No. 1, in the claim petition. When the Motor-cycle reached Baitkol, it skidded and both of them fell down. The deceased, that is Ignatius Gudinho, suffered serious head injuries resulting in the death of I.K. Gudinho on 24.3.1987, despite of best medical treatment. According to the claimant's case, the accident did take place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, coupled with the presence...
Mrs. Pramila Nesargi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1810
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The question raised in this present Writ Petition concern's the legality and propriety of allowing a part of the Indian Air Force area to a commercial establishment like the third respondent, A.B. Corporation Limited (hereinafter in short the 'the Company') on rental basis for conducting certain events connected with a purely commercial venture, namely, the 'Miss World Beauty Pageant, 1996'2. The present Writ Petition has been filed as a public interest litigation. The petitioner, apart from being a practicing Advocate of this court and sitting MLA, is an active social worker.3. The third respondent is a company incorporated and registered 'under the Companies Act, 1956. It is holding the 1996 beauty pageant at Bangalore. As is evident from the programme announced by it (Annexure A), the events of the pageant have already commenced from 11.11.1996 and are to continue till 24.11.1996. As per the said programme, three of the events namely, Carnival, Children's Pa...
State of Karnataka Vs. Farooq
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1224; 1997(2)KarLJ252
ORDER1. The State of Karnataka is required to prefer appeals against several orders of acquittal or against orders where the sentences are inadequate because a scrutiny of the record and the judgment prima facie indicates that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. There are, in the majority of cases, instances of delay and it is a pre-requisite for the appeal to be entertained, that it must be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. An earlier Division Bench of this Court had occasion to examine the issue and to find that, in June 1996, there were about 200 such cases pending where despite efforts by the learned Public Prosecutors in the High Court, both written and telephonic, that there was no response from the concerned officers and hence, the applications for condonation of delay could not be filed. We notice a particular pattern emerging and we do not rule out the possibility that the accused themselves who are beneficiaries, are instrumental in ensuring that this...
Management of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. their Workmen and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1136Kant
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. The challenge relates to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal with respect to the dispute referred on the question of payment of bonus for the year 1981-82. The management had paid 8.33 per cent. as bonus. The claim of the workers was declaration of 20 per cent bonus for the said period. This dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.2. The management in the claim statement averred that several items of the earnings of the company were not liable to be included for the purpose of calculating the gross profit. After consideration of the respective contentions, except in respect to two items, the claim of the management as regards the others have been upheld. The two items which were disallowed by the company to be included as gross profit of the company are:(i) Rs. 5,00,000 paid as donation to the school ; and (ii) Rs. 44,36,492 received by the company as cash subsidy. 3. They are described as items to be included for this purpose of...
Syndicate Bank Vs. S. Hanumantha Nayak and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR314; 1997(2)KarLJ555
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J1. Heard Learned Counsel for petitioner. Learned Counsel for respondents could not be heard as he was not present.2. Petitioner is the decree-holder in Ex.Case No. 65/91 and the two respondents are the judgment debtors therein. Undisputedly, petitioner had obtained a money decree on 15.9.1979 in O.S.No. 30/ 78 against respondents. The said decree was put to execution in Ex.Case No. 65/91 against respondents for realisation of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of certain immovable property described therein as belonging to judgment debtor-1. Subsequently, it was discovered by the petitioner-decree holder that the said immovable property had been transferred by respondent-1 (judgment debtor-1) in favour of his mother, by a registered conveyance deed dt 13.6.79. Then on 24.7.92 petitioner made I.A.No.III under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC before the Court below praying for permission to amend the Execution petition to substitute the mode of execu...
The Management of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. the Workmen Represented by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1352
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The challenge relates to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal with respect to the dispute referred on the question of payment of bonus for the year 1981-82. The management has paid 8.33% as bonus. The claim of the workers was declaration of 20% bonus for the said period. This dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.2. The management in the claim statement averred that several items of the earnings of the Company was not liable to be included for the purpose of calculating the gross profit. After consideration of the respective contentions, except in respect to two items, the claim of the management as regards the others have been upheld. The two items which was disallowed by the company to be included as gross profit of the company are:i) Rs. 5,00,000/- paid as donation to the school; andii) Rs. 44,36,492/- received by the company as cash subsidy.They are described as items to be included for this purpose of determining the pr...
Mahila Jagran Manch, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1996
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ295
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. 'Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder' is the centuries old saying which is universally acknowledged. Such a belief has been attempted to be belied by few in the later part of the 20th Century. Beauty is sought to be established by the certificates issued by the specialists in the field claiming perfection on the subject, To achieve and accomplish the certification of Beauty various contests are held, Miss World 1996 being one of those. The concept of beauty varies from race to race, from nation to nation and individual to individual. However, the certified beauty in the contest held in that behalf has a commercial aspect. In such beauty contests the participants are only from feminine gender who are generally believed to be the models or actresses or wishing to be such models and actresses. Upon their success in the aforesaid contests the participants are supposed to be lavishly paid and winners are awarded awards, prizes and other benefits.2. Respondent 2 is state...
Diamond Glass Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1996
Reported in: [2001]247ITR277(KAR); [2001]247ITR277(Karn); [2001]115TAXMAN644(Kar)
K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. By consent of the parties these writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner challenges annexure G, the order passed by the first respondent. 3. The facts are : The petitioner filed the returns for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84 under the Income-tax Act, 1961. After the assessment orders were passed, the petitioner sought to invoke the provisions under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), under which the Commissioner is authorised to waive or reduce the interest. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-II, passed an order under section 273A of the Act on October 5, 1993, rejecting the request of the petitioner to waive interest, except for 1979-80, for the assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85 on the ground that though the returns of income have been filed voluntarily and the income disclosed in full, taxes on the returned income have not been fully paid, which is one of the conditions to be sat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »