Karnataka Court September 1998 Judgments

Psi Data System Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004(163)ELT302(Kar)

1. We agree with the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. The appellant could not be allowed to relinquish the title in goods after the lapse of a number of years. Sections 23(2) and 86 of Customs Act read jointly leads to the conclusion that after the determination of the duty, it is not possible to relinquish the title in goods. After the lapse of time, for keeping the goods in the warehouse it has to be presumed that the importer is no longer interested in keeping the goods in the warehouse and the customs authorities are within their jurisdiction to determine the duty. The order of determination of duty not being in dispute, the appellant could not be permitted to relinquish his title in the goods. We have considered this matter earlier against a similar order passed by the same Judge which was upheld by us. Dismissed....

Ganesh Vs. Syed Munned Ahamed and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000ACJ1463

G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The Division Bench, which was hearing the present first appeal on merits, has referred the following questions of law to the Full Bench for its opinion:Whether in a case of a motor vehicle accident caused due to the composite negligence of the drivers of two or more vehicles, the person who is injured or the legal representatives of a person who is killed in such an accident, is/are entitled to claim the entire compensation from all or any of the drivers, owners and insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident. ORWhether in such a case the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased can recover only that part of compensation from each set of driver, owner or insurer which is proportionate to the quantum of negligence of that driver, which contributed to the accident?2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the new Act') against a judgment and award dated 20.10.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents C...

Shankarappa Sharanappa Gaure Vs. the Deputy Director of Public Instruc ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ438

ORDER1. The petitioner was working as Head Master in the 3rd respondent Dharmaprakash Higher Primary School, Basavakalyan. The said school is run by 2nd respondent-Management and has been admitted to Grant-in-Aid by the Government of Karnataka. By an order dated 25-7-1996 (Annexure-H), the Management of the school has put the petitioner under suspension, pending disciplinary enquiry.2. The aforesaid order (Annexure-H) was subjected to an appeal before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal'), which now owes its existence under Section 96 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (in short, 'the Education Act'), which has come into force with effect from 1-6-1995.3. The said appeal filed before the Tribunal was numbered as EAT No. 27 of 1998. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by its order dated 19-2-1998 (Annexure-L), on the ground of limitation. It has also rejected the I.A. filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Management to pay subsistence allowance...

Dhobi Ramaiah Vs. Dhobi Abbiga and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ178

ORDER1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 9-12-1988 passed by the 3rd respondent-Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent for 2 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy. No. 25/3 of Shamashetti Hally in Malur Taluk.2. According to the petitioner, the land in question is an Inam Land and the tenancy is joint family tenancy. In respect of the application filed by the first respondent seeking occupancy rights, the petitioner andthe 2nd respondent have got interest as coparceners. The grievance of the petitioner is that by making a false submission before the Land Tribunal that the first respondent was the only son of Late Mu-niswamappa, the original tenant of the land in question, he obtained the occupancy rights in his favour.3. The first respondent filed a detailed counter denying the petition averments. According to him, there was a family partition in the year 1985 itself and in that all the family properties had bee...

Ramesh Purdappa Ambannavar and Others Vs. State by Dharwad Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)92; ILR1998KAR3918; 1998(6)KarLJ256

Chidananda Ullal, J.1. These two appeals are interconnected since they are directed against the common judgment and order of conviction dated 9-7-1997 in S.C. No. 75 of 1993 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad, henceforth in brief referred as 'Sessions Judge'. When the first appeal is filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2, the second appeal is filed by the accused No. 3. In passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the learned Sessions Judge had sentenced all the accused persons for the offences under Sections 323, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. While so doing, the learned Sessions Judge had awarded R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC and further awarded imprisonment for life and further slapped a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to pay the sum, all of them were directed to undergo R.I. for a further period of 4 months.2. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellants in the first appeal Sri S.P. Kulkarni and the lea...

Shantesh Gureddi Vs. Smt. Thayamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR898; 1998(6)KarLJ409

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This civil revision petition has been placed before this Division Bench for resolving the conflict of opinions expressed by the two learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Hanumanthasastri Mahadevasastri Puranik and Another v Madhava Rao and Others and Smt. Par-vathamma v K.R. Lokanath , regarding the stage in a civil suit upto which a defendant can set up a counter-claim against the plaintiff under Order 8, Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC').2. This revision petition has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 281 of 1993 against the order dated 27-8-1996 by which the Trial Court has rejected I.A. No. 2 filed by him seeking amendment to the written statement purporting to set up an alleged counter-claim on the ground that the same is not permissible since it has been filed after the framing of the issues and commencement of the evidence.3. The plaintiff (respondent herein) has filed the said suit for redemption of the...

Ninge Gowda and Another Vs. S. Madhureswar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)335; ILR1999KAR197; 1998(6)KarLJ593

ORDER1. On 21-2-1997 the respondent filed a complaint against 5 Police Officers before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in P.C.R. No. 24 of 1997 alleging that they have assaulted and tortured him in a most inhumanly and barbaric manner causing injuries by detaining him in the Police Station, etc. and they have committed offences punishable under Sections 347, 346, 348, 352, 323, 324, 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate having taken cognizance recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses and thereafter directed issue of summons to the petitioner. The said order is questioned by accused 1 and 2 who are the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Police Inspector respectively, under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent.3. The learned Counsel submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, the sworn statement and...

Karnataka State Road Transportcorporation Vs. Anja Devi and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000ACJ1214

Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. This appeal is directed against the quantum of compensation awarded. The accident had taken place on 8.3.1994 and according to the finding of the Tribunal, the cause for accident has been the negligence of the driver of the bus of the appellantCorporation. The claim had been made to the tune of Rs. 2,70,000, but the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 79,200 for loss of dependency; Rs. 8,000 under the head of loss of benefit to the estate; Rs. 6,000 for loss of consortium; and Rs. 3,000 towards medical treatment, conveyance and nourishment and further a sum of Rs. 3,000 towards the funeral expenses. It rounded off the amount and awarded global compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.3. It has been contended that for the loss to estate, the sum of Rs. 8,000 is excessive and not in consonance with the Schedule given to the Act. Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be read along...

Dhobi Ramaiah Vs. Dhobi Abbiga and ors.

Court: Karnataka

V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 9.12.1988 passed by the 3rd respondent Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the first respondent for 2 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy.No. 25/3 of Shamashetty Hally in Malur Taluk.2. According to the petitioner, the land in question is an Inam land and the tenancy is joint family tenancy, in respect of the application filed by the first respondent seeking occupancy rights, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have got interest as coparceners. The grievance of the petitioner is that by making a false submission before the Land Tribunal that the first respondent was the only son of late Muniswamappa, the original tenant of the land is question, he obtained the occupancy rights in his favour.3. The first respondent filed a detailed counter denying the petitioner averments. According to him, there was a family partition in the year 1985 itself and in that all the family pro...

M/S. Samrat Cement Pipe Factory, Gokak Vs. Abdul Khader Hasansab Trasg ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000ACJ1178; [1999(82)FLR418]; 1999(2)KarLJ173; (1999)ILLJ1233Kant

1. The appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum in case No. Ka. Pa. SR. 45 of 1986 wherein a sum of Rs. 31,093 is awarded for the non-scheduled injury suffered by the respondent.2. Mrs. Sudha, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that although the Doctor has given the certificate stating that the respondent 1 is suffering from the disability of 25%, the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the disability at 100% and awarded the compensation. The date, time and place of accident are not in dispute.3. Mrs. Sudha, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Doctor was not examined. As such, the compensation awarded is on the higher side. Though the respondent is served, he has not taken care to appear either personally or through an Advocate.4. In the light of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the judgment and award is perused.5. One thing is clear that the respondent ...