Karnataka Court November 1997 Judgments

M/S. Sudhir Shrikant Mirje, Nipani and Others Vs. Krishnaji Marutirao ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ40

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit based on money, was decreed by the Trial Court. But, on appeal dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, the second appeal.2. The plaintiff claims to have lent Rs. 3,500/- on 5-3-1980 and according to the plaintiff, the defendant has signed in the Signature Book on that day. The defendant denied transaction and signature as well. But, contended that he had transaction earlier with the plaintiff and the said transactions have been settled and the account between them has been finalised and closed for ever.3. When the signature was disputed, the Trial Court after considering the evidence and documents produced, compared the signature. After such comparison, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that it is the signature of the defendant that is found in the suit documents and decreed the suit. The Appellate Court merely commented upon the Trial Court about the comparison of the signature and held that it is not possible for him to have suc...

Micro Labs Ltd. and ors Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Kar)174

ORDERP. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. :The petitioner in writ petition Nos. 32450-53/97, are the companies (hereinafter referred to as 'the companies') carrying on business of manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals. The petitioner in writ petition No. 32454/97, is an individual who is a director in some of the petitioner-companies.2. A few facts that may be relevant for disposal of these petitions may be stated as follows :(a) The business premises of the companies and also of the 5th petitioner was raided by the officials of the IT Department on 10th September, 1997, in exercise of the power conferred on them under S. 132 of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in the course of search, some records belonging to the petitioners also have been seized.(b) Chapter IV of the IT Act, as amended by means of Finance Act of 1997, provides for Voluntary Disclosure of the Income Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'). Sub-s. (1) of S. 64 of the Act (Chapter IV) provides that s...

Sha Champalal Oswal Vs. Peralu Achanna and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR3434; 1998(1)KarLJ365

ORDER1. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel on both sides.2. Civil Revision Petition No. 3903 of 1994 arises from the Execution Case No. 341 of 1989 taken out by respondent 1-Decree-Holder (hereinafter referred to as the 'DHr') to execute the money decree dated 29-9-1987 in his favour, passed in O.S. No. 95 of 1986 by the Court below. Respondent 2-N. Parameshwarappa was the only defendant in the said suit. The two petitioners herein named Sha Champalal Oswal and ChaganrajOswal were JDrs 2 and 3 in the said Execution Case No. 341 of1989 by respondent 1.Civil Revision Petition No. 3902 of 1994 has arisen out of execution proceeding in Ex. Case No. 433 of 1989 on the file of the Court below wherein its money decree dated 29-9-1987 passed in O.S. No. 96 of 1986 in favour of R-1 ('DHr' for short) is put to execution against respondent 2 and the petitioners, who are JDr Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, in that execution proceedings.3. Both the said O.S. Nos. 96 of 1986 and 95 of 1986 were filed...

U. Nithyananda Vs. Member Secretary, Tpa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR348

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This public interest litigation has been filed questioning the competence of the State Government to pass orders like the one dated 8.12.1994 (annexure 'A') permitting change of use of land under the purported exercise of power under Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) and also for quashing the consequential orders dated 18.2.1995 (Annexures 'B and C') passed by the respondent Tahsildar permitting conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture.2. So far as the facts raising to the above question are concerned, those are not at all in dispute. In respect of Udupi-Malpe Town Planning Area, a Comprehensive Development Plan ('CDP' for short) was published on 29.12.1992 as required under Section 22(4) of the Act. As per the said CDP the land measuring 9 acres 34 guntas in Sy. Nos. 70/1B and 70/3B of Nidamboor village, Udupi, owned by the 6th respondent company were reserved for Park, Open space and transport and ...

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR940; 1998(2)KarLJ559

R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Claiming to be the owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 202 and 204 of Kengeri Village, Sri S. Jugaraj S/o Sheshmal filed a petition in this Court praying for quashing of the notification dated 12th October, 1990 published in the Karnataka Gazette, on 22-10-1990. It was submitted by the writ petitioner that claiming to be the tenants of the land, some persons had filed applications for the grant of occupancy rights under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The Land Tribunal vide its order dated 23rd December, 1977 granted occupancy rights in favour of the aforesaid applicants. The order of the Land Tribunal was challenged by the writ petitioner in aWrit Petition No. 4131 of 1983. As during the pendency of the writ petition, the Land Reforms Act was amended and an Appellate Authority was constituted, the papers of the aforesaid writ petition were transmitted to the Appellate Authority with a direction to treat the same as an appeal and dispose of it acc...

Smt. K. Sarojamma Vs. Shivanna

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ208

1. The plaintiff challenges the dismissal of his suit for specific performance of contract of sale in the second appeal. The Courts below have concurrently held that in the contract, time is construed to be the essence. The contract was dated 30-11-1989 and the suit was filed on 3-12-1993. For want of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, the suit was dismissed by the Courts below on this ground. 2. I have perused the true copy of the agreement furnished to me by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The relevant clause is extracted below: 'On the contrary, if you fail to purchase schedule lands in absolute sale when I am willing and ready to act according to this agreement, within the time limit of five months under this agreement, this agreement stands cancelled after the expiry of that period and I will forfeit the Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only); that I have received from you as the advance amount today. 3. A reading of this clause clearly shows that the party...

Brooke Bond Corporate Office Staff Union Vs. Brooke Bond Lipton India ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1998)ILLJ1133Kant

1. The appellant, who was the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition has filed this appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent.2. The first respondent Industrial Establishment has its registered office at Calcutta. Its Corporate office was established in Bangalore in 1981. It has employed about 130 persons as its staff and it works five days a week. The appellant is the employees staff union of the establishment.3. Under Section 3 of the Karnataka Industrial Establishments (National & Festival Holidays) Act. 1963 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', all industrial establishments are required to allow paid holidays to the employees on January 26, August 15, and October 2, and five other days including May 1, of every calendar year and under Section 4 of the Act, the employer shall send a statement showing the holidays allowed in each calendar year under Section 3 apart from displaying the same in the premises of t...

Smt. Parvati Vs. Hallur Halappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999ACJ705; ILR1998KAR1374

Ashok Bhan, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and award and are therefore disposed of by a common order. M.F.A.1926/85 is by the claimants who are aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal while M.F.A.1309/86 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company limited which has challenged the award in so far as the extent of its liability under the policy issued by it.2. Brief facts are as under:Claimants are the legal representatives of one Basavaraj who was travelling in van bearing CAI 1288 on the night intervening 8/9th April 1983 from Haveri to Davanagere. While the van was corning near Chara village on Poona - Bangalore road, a truck bearing No. MYZ 5274 came from opposite direction and there was a collision between the two vehicles resulting in the death of said Basavaraj and injuries to the claimants.3. The claimants' case is that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the drivers of the vehicles. Clai...

National Education Society, Shimoga and Another Vs. B.N. Krishna Murth ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ725

ORDER1. Civil Revision Petition No. 3712 of 1992 is directed against the order dated 30-6-1992 passed by the Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39 of 1991 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. Civil Revision Petition No. 4062 of 1992 is directed against the order dated 25-9-1992 passed by the Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 18 of 1902 directing to reinstate the appellant and to allot the work load and to pay the unpaid salary from 14-7-1992 with other contributions and other allowances till the date of reinstatement. 2. The facts of these petitions in nut-shell are very simple. Mr. B.N. Krishna Murthy was working as a part-time lecturer since 1972. In the year 1991, he was dropped from the College. Being aggrieved by this he preferred EA No. 39 of 1992 which came to be dismissed. During 1991 the Society passed resolution in NEW 2789 of 1990-91 on 27-3-19...

National Education Society, Shimoga and anr. Vs. B.N. Krishna Murthy

Court: Karnataka

ORDERB.K. Sangalad, J. 1. Civil Revision Petition No. 3712 of 1992 is directed against the order dated 30.6.1992 passed by the Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39 of 1991 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. Civil Revision Petition No. 4062 of 1992 is directed against the order dated 25.9.1992 by the Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 18 of 1992 directing to reinstate the appellant and to allot the work load and to pay the unpaid salary from 14.7.1992 with other contributions and other allowances till the date of reinstatement. 2. The facts of these petitions in nut-shell are very simple. Mr. B. N. Krishna Murthy was working as a part-time lecturer since 1972. In the year 1991, he was dropped from the College. Being aggrieved by this he preferred EA No. 39 of 1992 which came to be dismissed. During 1991 the Society passed resolution in NEW 2789 of 1990-9...