Karnataka Court June 1998 Judgments
K.C. Krishnamurthy Vs. K. Harish and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC158; 1998(6)KarLJ321
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.2. This revision under Section 115 arises from the judgment and order dated 15-4-1994 by Sri G. Ramakrishna Rao, Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Bangalore, rejecting the present revisionist-petitioner's application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC. The Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that the application had been filed beyond the period of one year and it has been held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to be brought on record. Under the old Act prior to amendment of law by Act No. 54 of 1984, the provision of fixing limitation for making claim application has been omitted. In this case, the claim petition had been filed by one Harish K. in the year 1990 when the new Act had come into force. Later on, the revisionist moved an application for impleadment in the same petition. Section as it operated then had provided maximum limitation of one year for filing the claim petition. The Tribunal opined ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sathyanarayana and ors. Vs. Muralidhara and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3564
B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants/occupants of the car who were injured/claimants against the judgment and award dated 22.10.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-l, Hassan in MVC.Nos.262, 263, 264 and 265/1986 dismissing the claim petitions for compensation against the owner of the car and the Insurance Company.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/owner and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in MVC.Nos. 262 to 265/86 from the present appeals have been filed in the policy Ext.R2, it is mentioned that the policy covers the use for social, domestic or pleasure purposes and for the business of the insured. The learned Counsel for the claimants have contended that the occupants who were travelling in the car were returning after attending a dance programme at the time of the accident. It must be held that th...
Tag this Judgment!M. Dinesan Vs. State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3411; 2000(3)KarLJ369
ORDER1. The petitioner is a person with only one eye. He claims to have lost the other eye when he was six years old. According to petitioner, his eyesight in the remaining one eye is normal and the loss of one eye did not come in the way of pursuing his education and obtaining a degree in Arts and a postgraduate degree in law, with excellent academic record and merit scholarship from the University Grants Commission. He practised as an Advocate for seven years, taught law for two years and was appointed as Law Officer in Vijaya Bank in 1983. His initial appointment was in Junior Management Grade Scale-I and in 1992 he was promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale-II in merit channel. He claims that during about 20 years of education and about 20 years ofwork, he never felt handicapped, nor did any one feet that he had a deficiency.2. The Central Recruitment Board (State Bank Group) invited applications for the post of Law Officers in Senior Management Grade, Scale-IV by an advertiseme...
Tag this Judgment!Murthy Associates Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Kar)283; [1998]234ITR30(KAR); [1998]234ITR30(Karn)
ORDER UNDER S. 281--Scope--Matter pending before civil court. Ratio :Even if no order is passed under section 281 the transfer of property contrary to section 281 would be void against revenue and if order is passed it will be only a declaration of intention of revenue to proceed against the property therefore, in the circumstances of case, there is no necessity to declare the order passed by the Income Tax Officer as without jurisdiction more particularly when a civil suit has been filed and is pending which will finally determine the rights of the parties. Held :From the various decisions and the plain language of the section 281 the following principles emerge (1) That the provisions of section 281 of the Income Tax Act, are declaratory by statute itself.(2) That for the purpose of proceedings against a property which has been transferred or on which a charge is created, for an intention of the Income Tax Officer to proceed against the said property could be by passing an order und...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Vs. Mahesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3589
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1.This is a landlord's petition under Section 115 of CPC. 2. Petitioner/landlord herein filed an eviction petition against the respondent/tenant under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (For short THE ACT) on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Bagalkot on the ground that the landlord has issued a notice contemplated under Section 21(1)(a) dated 24th July 1987 calling upon the letter to pay the arrears of rent for the period February '87 to July '87, monthly rents being calculated @ Rs. 300/- which he had not paid. The tenant refused to accept the said notice. Consequently the landlord filed an eviction petition. During the enquiry of the said eviction petition, the landlord also filed a application under Section 29(1) of the act. The said application came to be allowed.The learned Munsiff determined the arrears of rent that the tenant was liable to pay to the landlord as on the date of his order i.e., on 12.7.1990 @ Rs. 12,000/- and directed...
Tag this Judgment!Brindavan Roller Mills Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4161
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. The controversy in all these petitions being common, all these petitions are disposed by this common order. The commodity in question is wheat bran, on which the liability of tax or the question of exemption is to be examined.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners restricted their arguments on two points; 1) Whether the notification dated 19.10.1991 issued under Section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is still in existence or stand repealed. 2) Whether the State Government could have exercised the power on 30.3.1996 for re transposing an entry from fifth schedule to the second schedule, in contravention of the provisions of Section 8A(2A) of the Act. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner the relevant notification which are issued from time to time are reproduced hereunder :GOVERNMENT ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Chikkapapanna Alias G.C. Papanna Vs. Smt. Kenchamma (Deceased) by L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3450; 1998(5)KarLJ360
1. This is plaintiff's first appeal from the judgment and decree dated 12-11-1990, passed by Sri K.R. Prasad Rao, XIV Additional City Civil Judge, (Mayo Hall), Bangalore in Original Suit No. 649 of 1980 (No. 7 of 74), dismissing the plaintiff's-appellant's suit for the reliefs mentioned hereinafter in toto.2. That the plaintiff in the above suit claimed:(a) Decree for declaration to the effect that the suit scheduled properties exclusively belong to plaintiff; and (b)That any alienation of suit properties i.e., items 3 and 4 of schedule properties even made by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 are illegal, null and void and are not binding on plaintiff; (c)Decree for permanent injunction; 3. That the plaintiff-defendant i.e., the appellant-respondents are related as below: P.GovindappaSmt. Kenchamma (Defendant 1)Plaintiff(G.C. Papanna)(Defendant No. 2)(D. Chikkamma)(Defendant No. 3)(Puttalakshmamma)(Defendant No. 4)Govind Raj Natural son Auras putra given in adoption to Madk...
Tag this Judgment!K.L. Swamy Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)157CTR(Kar)489; ILR1998KAR3355; [1999]239ITR386(KAR); [1999]239ITR386(Karn)
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari the petitioners call in question the validity of an order passed by the respondent-Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, refusing to reduce or waive interest and penalty levied under Sections 139(8), 217, 271(l)(a), 273(2)(b) and 271(l)(c) of the Income-tax Act, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1985-86.2. The petitioners are real brothers and have been referred to as the Khoday's in the course of the proceedings before the authorities below. They appear to have evinced interest in the purchase of two estates situate in the Chickmagalur District of the State of Karnataka. These estates were then owned by a partnership comprising one Sri Thyagarajan and a few others. Instead of an outright transfer under an instrument, the parties appear to have adopted a circuitous route apparently to avoid payment of the stamp duty payable on any such transfer. This included the dissolution of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. M/S. Asia (P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ273
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. We are impelled to pass this order to highlight and to put an end to an unwarranted practice susceptible to varied distortions, mischiefs and undesired results, at times baffling; this practice is being continued in the Registry of this Court unabated for a pretty long time. Our experience tells us that in the guise of such a practice as against the application filed for grant of a particular order passed by a Hon'ble Judge concerned, the Registry grants certified copies of the order drawn up by the concerned official in the Registry of this Court based on their own understanding and interpretation of the concerned judicial order. This aspect can very well be appreciated from all that what has transpired, glaringly and openly, in the present appeal before us.2. The present first appeal has been filed by the defendant, who has suffered money decree for a sum of Rs. 2,31,472.12 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. On 13-11-1997, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Mahalaxmi Urban Co-operative Credit Bank Limited, Gokak Vs. Shank ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1117; 1998(5)KarLJ461
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. Shri Mahalaxmi Urban Co-operative Credit Bank Limited, Gokak (hereinafter referred to as 'the bank') has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the bank has been dismissed. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 are the members of the bank. They were removed from the membership by a resolution in the Managing Committee dated,, August 19, 1988 on the ground that they were defaulters and the amount had to be recovered by resorting to execution proceedings. R-l to R-3 raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bailhongal. Vide his order dated 28th February, 1988, the Assistant Registrar, dismissed the petition. An appeal was preferred by R-l to R-3 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') which was numbered as 204 of 1990. The Tribunal vide its order dated 28th Oct...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »