Karnataka Court February 1998 Judgments
R. Sohanlal JaIn Vs. M. Channappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)KarLJ361
ORDER1. Since the petitioner-tenant and the respondent-landlord are the same in these revision petitions, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, these revision petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common order.2. In the course of this order, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as the tenant and landlord respectively.3. A few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of these revision petitions, may be set out as hereunder:(a) The tenant is in occupation of two premises bearing Nos. 85/1 and 85/2, each measuring 8' x 23', situated on 27th Cross, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore.(b) H.R.R.P. No. 790 of 1991 and H.R.R.P. No. 791 of 1991 are filed challenging the Order dated 16th of November, 1990 made in H.R.C. No. 426 of 1989 and H.R.C. No. 427 of 1989 by the Court of the Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Small Cause Judge'), directing eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1...
Tag this Judgment!M. Lakshmi Devi Vs. M. Lakshmi Devi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ33
Acts/Rules/Orders:Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 7(1) Explanation and 8;Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 9, 96 and 107;Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 59Cases Referred:Ram Chandra v. Muneshwar and Others, AIR 1962 All. 248;Mt. Kundan Bibi v. Magan Lal, AIR 1932 All. 710;Kiran Singh and Others v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340;Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu v. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh and Others, AIR 1951 SC 120JUDGEMENT1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 17-9-1988 passed by Sri M.P. Chinnappa, IV Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 10372 of 1983 whereby the Trial Court had decreed the plaintiffs' suit and held that the plaintiff had been legally wedded wife of the deceased Yellaiah and plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled for terminal benefits and other benefits as well as issued decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant 1 in the suit namely the Commercial Works Engineer, Dickenson Road, who is respondent 4 in the a...
Tag this Judgment!Nagesh Laxman Vernekar and Others Vs. Ananth Krishna Naik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant411; 1998(5)KarLJ332
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellants are the plaintiffs. The respondent is the defendant. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No. 10 of 1979 on the file of the Munsiff, Kumta, against the defendant for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property which is a shop measuring 20 1/2' x 12' in which the defendant, a stranger to the family of the plaintiffs, has been running a medical shop for the last so many years. 3. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 4. The Trial Court granted the plaintiffs 5/8 share in the suit property and said that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of their 5/8 share. 5. The Trial Court committed a mistake. The suit property is not an agricultural property and assessed to land revenue. But the Trial Court stated that the Deputy Commissioner or his gazetted subordinate should partition the suit property. This portion is obviously wrong. 6. The defendant, aggriev...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Gnanaprakasham Vs. Venktaswamy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3198
ORDERH. Rangavittalacha, J.1. Since in all these Writ Petitions the orders impugned are the same and a common questions of law and facts are involved, all of them are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The admitted facts in all these writ petitions are as follows:The land bearing Survey No. 1 measuring in all 3 Acres situate in Jarakabande Kaval, Bangalore North Taluk was granted to one Venkata Bovi under a grant certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk vide No. D.D.3/56-57 dated 1.6.1957. On 1.6.1967 the said Venkata Bovi sold 1 Acre 20 Guntas of land out of 3 Acres to one V.R. Gnanaprakasham and another 1 Acre 20 Guntas to one V.R. Anthoniswamy. On coming into force of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act ('the Act for short) one V. Venkataswamy S/o the grantee Venkatabovi made an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division Bangalore under Rule 3(2) of the Act for...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Honappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC341; 2000ACJ412; ILR1998KAR1962; 1999(2)KarLJ523
ORDER1. This is an insurer's appeal on the question of liability. The accident took place at 2.30 a.m. on the night between 5-2-1994 and 6-2-1994. The Insurance Policy was in effect till 21-9-1984 and had not been renewed subsequently. After the accident, during office hours on 6-2-1994 the owner went to the Insurance Company, paid the premium and obtained a fresh Insurance Policy without disclosing the happening of the accident. The Insurance Company contended before the Tribunal that the risk commenced only when the premium was paid during office hours and therefore it is not liable to indemnify the owner with regard to the accident which took place at 2.30 a.m. The Tribunal refused to accept that contention and held that under the law the risk is deemed to have commenced from the zero hour of 6-2-1984 and therefore held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Being aggrieved this appeal is preferred.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Miss T.S. Vedavalli Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Author ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ504
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the order of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, dated October 21, 1997. By this order Annexure-C to the writ petition, dated 21-10-1997, the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Rule 13, sub-rule (9) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, has cancelled the allotment of Site No. 396 in Hosur-Sarjapur Road, Sector VI Layout, measuring 40' x 60' which allotment had been made in favour of Ms. T.S. Vedavalli, vide, intimation dated 18-2-1994. The allotment had been cancelled on the ground that allotment of the site was obtained by a false declaration by the petitioner that she did not own any house or site in Bangalore, nor any site had been allotted to the applicant or her relation. The Bangalore Development Authority, after having issued notice to the petitioner and considering the reply dated 10-9-1997, opined that the undisputed fact established d...
Tag this Judgment!Boregowda and anr. Vs. Smt. Rangamayamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant46
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The defendant challenges the decree for partition of 1/8th share of the plaintiff by the first Appellate Court while the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal. 2. Plaintiffs mother Javaramma and the second defendant were the wives of one Ningegowda, who died in 1960 leaving behind him the plaintiff, her mother, the son first defendant and the other widow-second defendant. Claiming that on the death of Ningegowda, succession opened, the plaintiff and the first defendant are each entitled to 2/5th share and surviving widow the second defendant is entitled to the remaining l/5th. The suit for partition was laid. 3. The defendants resisted by contending that the plaintiffs marriage took place in 1951.Ningegowda died in 1945 or 46 and therefore the first defendant alone became the sole surviving a coparcener and consequently the plaintiff is not entitled to any share. The 9th item of the suit schedule is built out of the defendant's e...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana and anr. Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3675
1. This appeal has been filed by the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 69/1992 from the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore. The appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 21-9-1995 whereunder they Have been convicted of the offence of having committed the murder of one Nagendra @ Kumar at about 9.30 P.M. on 12-2-1992 at a smashana near the Bamboo Bazaar at Mysore. The accused are alleged to have taken the deceased Kumara with them initially for purposes of consuming drinks and after that they are alleged to have kicked the deceased on the chest and the abdomen and accused No. 1 is alleged to have caused bleeding injuries to the deceased by cutting his testicles and the second accused is alleged to have strangulated him with a kerchief and a ladi. The police were informed on the next morning that the body was lying at that spot and in the course of the inquest that was being conducted PW. 2 Chandrakala identified the body as that of her brother. In...
Tag this Judgment!H and R Johnson (India) Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Excise and Customs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(101)ELT252(Kar)
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has certain excise liability. The practice seems to be that the customers are allowed discount in the payment in the event of prompt payment of the amount due from them: but certain customers do not make prompt payment resulting in they being denied the discount.The Department took the stand that irrespective of the fact that in the case of those who did not avail the discount benefit, excise duty should be taxed on the whole amount. This stand of the Department was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and by Annexure-A Order dated 10-4-1992, the Appellate Authority upheld the claim of the petitioner and declared that duty is payable with respect to the discounted value of goods irrespective of the fact whether the customers have availed the discount benefit or not. It held that the petitioner would be liable to pay customs duty only on the discounted price of the articles. Annexure-A is the order passed by the Appellate Auth...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Meenakshi Pharma Distributors, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ164
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Krishna Kumar and the learned Government Pleader Sri M.H. Ibrahim.2. The question in the appeal is very short one and it is to the effect whether the Trial Court acted according to law in awarding interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of its realisation particularly when according to the case of the appellant, it is admitted position that the rate of interest was agreed and has been found to have been agreed at 15% p.a. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 18-8-1987 passed by Sri K.R. Prasada Rao, XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suit Nos. 766 of 1977 and 1883 of 1980. The Trial Court decreed the suit for the sum as claimed in the plaint of to the tune of Rs. 1,27,119-05 ps. with costs and with interest at the rate of 6% on the principal balance amount of Rs. 56,969-05 ps. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. On the basis of the pleadings of the p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »