Karnataka Court January 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kum. R. Komala Vs. Mohammed Iqbal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ191
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Doddaballapur in Ex. No. 29 of 1998 allowing the execution petition. 2. The suit for specific performance of contract namely suit No. 12 of 1992 was decreed by the Trial Court judgment and decree dated 26-11-1997. The decree-holder filed an application for execution of decree on 27-2-1998. The judgment-debtor took objection that the decree-holder had not deposited the sum of Rs. 25,000/- within the period and the application moved by the decree-holder for permission to deposit be rejected. It was alleged that the decree-holder had sworn a false affidavit that the judgment-debtor had failed to receive the said amount and sought permission to deposit the said amount and that amount having been deposited three months beyond the period. So, decree-holder had not complied with the Court's direction as such the application be rejected. The execution Court...
C.M. Chikkanna Vs. Smt. Parvathamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ319
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that I.A. 5 filed by the plaintiff whereby the request made for appointment of a Receiver had been rejected by order dated 20-8-1998. But, in the order there was no such direction that defendant shall furnish accounts every fortnight. The defendant had come up in revision from that order itself before this Court and this Court vide order passed by Sri K.R. PrasadaRao, J., dismissed the revision opining that revision was not maintainable and further observed that if any such directions are given by the Trial Court by any separate order, 1st defendant is entitled to challenge any such direction at that stage. Thereafter, it appears Court corrected the mistake and numbered the directions as,(1) Application rejected. (2) Defendant 1 shall file accounts every fortnight. 3. Learned Counsel contended that no application appears to have been made on behalf of the plaintiff. T...
Dhanraj Vs. Gulbarga University, Gulbarga and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3880; 1999(5)KarLJ297
ORDER1. The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery Course (in short, the 'BAMS' Course) prosecuting his studies in the 2nd respondent-N.K. Jabshetty Ayurvedic Medical College, Bidar. The petitioner was admitted to the BAMS Course during the academicyear 1993-94, the examinations whereof are conducted by the respondent-Gulbarga University (in short, the 'University').2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the letter dated 9-7-1997 (Annexure-C) issued by the Registrar of the respondent University and the consequential communication made by the college authorities, restraining the petitioner from continuing the 'BAMS' Course on the ground that despite 4 attempts he has failed to clear all the subjects of the first phase of 'BAMS' Course.3. The 'BAMS' Course is governed by the Regulations for the Ayurvedacharya (Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) Degree Course (in short, the 'University Regulations')...
Zoo Authority of Karnataka, Mysore Vs. Anand
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ176
ORDER1. Heard Sri B.N. Dayananda, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24-2-1998 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 51 of 1997 whereby the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 5-6-1997 passed on I.A. I in Original Suit 232 of 1997 by the I Civil Judge. The Appellate Court further partly allowed I.A. filed by the plaintiff-opposite party and the operative portion of the order reads as under: 'The appeal is hereby allowed. The order dated 5-6-1997 made on I.A. I in Original Suit 232 of 1997 on the file of 2nd Additional First Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mysore is hereby set aside. I.A. I filed by the plaintiff is partly allowed restraining the defendant from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property except in accordance with law till the disposal of the suit. This is subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall deposit the licence fee by enhancing the ear...
Karnataka Bank Limited, Holenarasipur Vs. S.N. Nanjappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas186(Kar); 1999(3)KarLJ217
ORDER1. Heard.2. The petitioner is the decree-holder Bank and respondents are judgment-debtors 1 and 2 in Ex. No. 16 of 1995 wherein the Execution Petition is dismissed by the Executing Court by its impugned order dated 17-4-1997 made on I.A.VII under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by respondents praying for its dismissal on the ground that the total figure of the amount recoverable under the decree in execution as on the date of the said application was exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs and, therefore, by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('the Act' for short), the Court below ceased to have jurisdiction to recover the same from them.3. In passing the impugned order reliance had been placed by the executing Court on a decision of this Court in K. Kunhambu and Another v Vijaya Bank, K.G. Road, Bangalore. It is held therein that the Execution Petition filed in the Trial Court by any decree-holder Bank, F...
Sathya Shree Vs. M. Kumreshan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ540
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of the order dated 7-1-1998 passed by the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1109 of 1997 on the petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for transfer of the suit bearing O.S. No. 4438 of 1996 filed by the revision petitioner-respondent pending in the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge (CCH. 14), Bangalore, to the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge (CCH. 16), Bangalore, where the earlier suit filed by respondent-petitioner had been pending.2. The learned Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore after considering the matter held that the Court of the Principal City Civil Judge being the Principal Court of the original civil jurisdiction comes within the definition of the District Court and by virtue of Section 24(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said Court has got power to order transfer of case from one Court to the other.3. The learned Principal City Civil Judge observed that si...
V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Kar)564; [1999]237ITR630(KAR); [1999]237ITR630(Karn)
V. K. Singhal, J.1. The validity of Circular No. 666 (see [1993] 204 ITR 40), dated October 8, 1993/March 8, 1996 (see [1994] 206 ITR 299), issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is assailed in these petitions and, therefore, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The Income-tax Officer in W. P. No. 14991-93 of 1994 issued a letter dated November 8, 1993, that in view of the circular dated October 8, 1993 (see [1993] 204 ITR 40), clarification of the term 'any work' in Section 194C and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]201ITR435(SC) , the assessee is requested to deduct tax as per the provisions of Section 194C on all types of contracts such as transport contracts, service contracts, labour contracts, material contracts as well as works contract, etc.3. The provisions of Section 194C are as under :'(1) Any person responsible for paying any sum to any resident (hereafter in this section referred to as ...
Ramesh Cotton Corporation and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-1999
Reported in: [2001]121STC424(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Validity of Section 28-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 has been assailed in these petitions. Proviso reads thus :'Provided that where the goods carried in the goods vehicle or boat, as the case may be, is arecanut, cashew, cardamom, cotton, timber, pepper, coconut, copra, coffee, oil seeds, edible oil including vanaspathi, liquor or iron and steel or such other goods as may be notified by the Commissioner, the owner or person in-charge of a goods vehicle or boat shall carry with him in addition to the document mentioned in this sub-section, a delivery note obtained from the prescribed authority containing such particulars as may be prescribed.'From the perusal of the proviso it is clear that in respect of the specified commodities it is clear that it is mandatory on the part of the petitioners to furnish delivery note obtained from the prescribed authority. This provision is with a view to ensure proper payment of tax and curb the activities of evasion of...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bangalore Vs. B.S. Sridhara Murt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ574
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-Sri C.K. Narayana Rao and Smt. Hymavathi holding brief for Sri H.R. AnanthakrishnaMurthy, learned Counsel for the respondent 1. None appears for respondent 2. 2. This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 7-3-1998 whereby the Trial Court has allowed the amendment of the written statement and whereby it has allowed the defendant to raise the plea that the suit is not maintainable on account of misjoinder of cause of action. It has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and this position is not being disputed that this amendment has been sought only at the stage of arguments on merits of the suit. The Court below observed that.-- 'The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has already advanced his arguments on main suit. But, the suit is still at the stage of hearing arguments on behalf of the defendants'.No doubt, thereafter the Court referred to their contention. It is the law of ...
Prakash Vs. Hanumanthraya and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1999
Reported in: 2000ACJ604; ILR1999KAR1671; 1999(3)KarLJ221
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/owner of the goods vehicle which involved in the accident against the judgment and award dated 19-1-1996 passed in Motor Vehicles Case 142 of 1992 by the 1st Additional District Judge and Member, MACT, Gulbarga awarding compensation of Rs. 63,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation to the father of the deceased/dependent in motor vehicle accident. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/owner of the vehicle and the learned Counsel for respondent 2-Insurance Company. 3. The main ground urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the liability should have also been fastened against the Insurance Company-respondent 2 as the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that from the copy of the driving licence Ex. R. 3 issued to respondent 1, it is clear that the driver was authorised to drive the light motor vehicle and whe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »