Karnataka Court March 1996 Judgments

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lakshmi and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997ACJ7; [1999]95CompCas423(Kar); ILR1996KAR2955; 1996(3)KarLJ443

Chandrashekariah, J. 1. This appeal is by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated September 13, 1995, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in MVC No. 1203 of 1991. 2. This appeal is by the insurance company. The main contention raised by the insurance company in this case is that the policy that was issued in favour of G.N. Druvakumar was for a period from June 15, 1990, to June 14, 1991. During this period, the vehicle was transferred in favour of one Syed Khasim with effect from December 10, 1990, and the said Syed Khasim in turn sold the vehicle in favour of M. Basavaraj on January 14, 1991. 3. The accident occurred on April 6, 1991. On the basis of the abovesaid facts, it is contended by the insurance company that in view of sub-section (2) of section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short), the deemed transfer of certificate of insurance as contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 157 of the Act is only for a ...

H. Ibrahim Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR1982; 1996(5)KarLJ678

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. Petitioners are the dealers in Indian made Foreign Liquor engaged in the business of either retail vending or running a Bar and Restaurant having licences in Form CL-2 or CL-9 as prescribed under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter in short, 'the Rules'). Their licensed premises are located in Shimoga and Bhadravathi. Admittedly, till upto 17th July 1992, Shimoga and Bhadravathi were City and Town Municipal Council areas respectively. By Notification No. HUD/101/MNE/92 dated 17th July 1992 (Annexure-C) issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short, 'the Corporation Act'), the State Government declared the said areas to be a city and established a Corporation for the same, by the name 'Corporation of the City of Shimoga and Bhadravathi'. Subsequently, the Governor pursuant to the powers conferred on him under Section 3 read which Section 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, ...

Ankappa Vs. Management of K.S.R.T.C. Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3050; 1996(7)KarLJ264

ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. These Writ Petitions raise a common question of law and are therefore being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners are employees of the Respondent-Corporation who have suffered orders of punishment on the basis of chargesheets served upon them alleging acts of omissions and commission amounting to misconduct. Aggrieved, by the said order, they have come up with these petitions, assailing the same on precisely speaking two grounds. Firstly it is urged that the orders imposing punishments have been passed by the Respondent-Corporation under the provisions of the K.S.R.T.C. (C & D) Regulations 1971 framed under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, which according to the petitioners are not applicable to them as they are governed by the standing orders framed under Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. A similar question as to the applicability of the Standing Orders under the Act aforesaid to the employees of the Respondent-...

H. Ibrahim and ors. Vs. the State and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3324

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. Petitioners are the dealers in Indian made Foreign Liquor engaged in the business of either retail vending or running a Bar and Restaurant having licences in Form CL-2 or CL-9 as prescribed under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter in short, 'the Rules'). Their licensed premises are located in Shimoga and Bhadravathi. Admittedly, till upto 17th July 1992, Shimoga and Bhadravathi were City and Town Municipal Council areas respectively. By Notification No. HUD/101/ MNE/92 dated 17th July 1992 (Annexure-C) issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short, 'the Corporation Act'), the State Government declared the said areas to be a city and established a Corporation for the same, by the name 'Corporation of the City of Shimoga and Bhadravathi'. Subsequently the Governor pursuant to the power conferred on him under Section 3 read with Section 9 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 196...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Chandrashekariah, J.1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 13,9.1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in MVC No. 1203/1991.2. This appeal is by the Insurance Company. The main contention raised by the Insurance Company in this case is that the policy that was issued in favour of G.N. Druvakumar was for a period from 15.6.1990 to 14.6.1991. During this period the vehicle was transferred in favour of one Sayed Khasim with effect from 10.12.1990 and the said Syed Khasim in turn sold the vehicle in favour of M. Basavaraj on 14.1.1991.3. The accident occurred on .6.4.1991. On the basis of the abovesaid facts it is contended by the Insurance Company that in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (the 'Act' for short) the deemed transfer of certificate of insurance as contemplated Under Sub-section (1) of Section 157 of the Act is only for a period 14 days from the date of transfer and n...

Anasuya and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3336; 1996(6)KarLJ254

ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard Learned Advocates who represent the petitioners, the University, the Learned Government Advocate and the Learned Advocate who represents the institution. This is a case in which 20 students have been admitted in excess to the B.Ed. course for the academic year 1995-96. As has become customary, under the interim orders these students had appeared for the examination but it is pointed out by the Learned Advocates who represent the Government as also the University that the law is now well settled in so far as there can be no direction to regularise the admissions which are in breach of the regulations. Under the circumstances, the fact that the students concerned have done the examinations will not avail them because their admissions themselves are irregular. Normally, this Court would have been totally disabled from granting any relief in a situation like this. The Division Bench of this Court while allowing Writ Appeal Nos. 1168/93 and 2125/92 on 14.2.96 ...

State of Karnataka Vs. Varadashankar Chinnappa Javalgi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3693; 1996(7)KarLJ818

K.S. Bhakthavathsalam, J.1. The State of having failed in both the Courts below has come up in this second appeal.2. The substantial question of law framed at the time of admitting the appeal is,'Is the suit of the plaintiff-respondent maintainable in view of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure taking into consideration the relief sought by him?'3. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he belongs to 'Koshti' caste and that a direction may be issued to the Director of Public Instructions or his subordinates to rectify the records by changing the words 'Hindu Lingayat' and substituting the words 'Hindu Koshti'.'4. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a resident of Hulyal and his father and forefathers also came from the same place and since time immemorial they are following the business of weaving known as 'Koshti' in Marathi and 'Jardar' in Kannada. It is claimed that the plaintiff and his family members follow the same profession. Plaintiff alleges that he is a Gra...

Muniyappa Vs. Ramaiah

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1996Kant321; ILR1996KAR1883; 1996(2)KarLJ563

ORDER1. The defendant in a Suit for injunction is the Revision Petitioner. The plaintiff filed a Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the plaint schedule property, alleging that he purchased the same from one Chinnappa, the brother of the defendant under a Registered Sale Deed dated 26-3-1984. Chinnappa obtained the property on 30-4-1982 on the basis of an order under the Inams Abolition Act. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he is put in possession of the plaint schedule property and the Revenue Records has been changed in his name. He has also secured a loan of Rs.4,09,500/- from a Financial Institution on the security of the plaint schedule land. The defendant, who has no manner of right over the plaint schedule property, is attempting to trespass into the suit schedule property and accordingly, the suit is filed for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed I.A. II under O.39, R. 1 of the Code of...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1998]229ITR191(KAR); [1998]229ITR191(Karn)

S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Substantial questions of law have been referred for opinion as under : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Income-tax Officer to include the value of work-in-progress, machinery and equipment in transit and under erection in the computation of capital for the purpose of relief under section 80J 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that for the purpose of computing relief under section 80J profits and gains after (it should be before) allowing current depreciation should be the basis 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Income-ta...

Kwality Biscuits Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr. of Central Excise, Division-i

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000(123)ELT356(Kar)

ORDER1. Rule. Respondents have been duly served. They have not opted to file any statement of objections. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In this case, it is not in dispute that against the order of adjudication passed by the respondent - Assistant Commissioner/Additional Commissioner of Central Excises, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (in short 'the Act') along with an application under the proviso to Section 35F thereof for dispensation of pre-deposit of the disputed excise duty/penalty. 2. Admittedly, both the appeal as also the application for dispensation are still pending disposal. Despite the said facts, the adjudicating authority has undertaken coercive measures under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules for realisation of the disputed demands on the ground that the petitioner has failed to obtain stay order from the appellate authority. It has been stated at the bar that the sole appellate authority is...