Karnataka Court October 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.
Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. D.P. Gurumurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant214; 2001(3)KarLJ389
ORDERThe suit is for recovery of money due to the Electricity Board being minimum electrical energy charges during the period of agreement i.e., between 20-10-1985 to 20-10-1990 was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the defendant did not avail electricity. The suit is barred by limitation and there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to pay such charges.2. This decree is assailed before this Court by the Electricity Board in the above C.R.P. There is no dispute that the defendant was given electrical energy to run 1.00 H.P. water pump for hotel for commercial purpose, on executing an agreement dated 20-10-1985. The defendant agreed to pay the electrical charges calculated as per tariff LT. 3(a). He is also bound to pay electrical energy charges. During the period of agreement, irrespective of the fact whether the defendant avails electrical energy or not. In the written statement, the defendant states that he has agreed to pay minimum electrical charge...
R.K. Agrawal and Another Vs. B.P.K. Johri and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ170
ORDER1. These writ petitions raise a short point, which is urged by Dr. R.B. Krishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, largely inspired by the English Legislation on the subject. The petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Section 13(4) and Section 13(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). To assail the statutory provision, in essence, he relies on the principle nemo debet esse judex in propria causa i.e., no man can be judge in his own cause. And he draws sustenance for the challenge from the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The relevant brief facts are as follows:The petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 who belong to the very same family partitioned their family business under a Memorandum of Settlement dated 30-3-1996, whereby while separating they agreed that the 1st respondent be the sole Arbitrator to arbiter any dispute that might arise amongst them in the event the dispute arising cannot be sorted ou...
B.R. Subramanyam and ors. Vs. Controller of Insurance Govt. of India a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant128
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, except the petitioners are different, not only the respondents are common but the facts, the prayers and the point involved are all common. Hence, these two writ petitions were heard and disposed of together.2. The petitioners have submitted applications as per Annexure-B for a license to act as Surveyors and Loss Assessors to the first respondent. Their applications had been returned with a covering letter as per Annexure-D on the ground that they do not possess the prescribed qualification. Aggrieved by the same have filed these writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondents to grant them the licenses. The petitioners have asserted that they possessed the requisite qualifications and the rejection of their applications were illegal and arbitrary.3. Respondents have filed objections to the writ petition. A preliminary objection is raised that the writ petitions are not maintainable as there is no infringement of any funda...
Ashit Roy Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: [2000]101CompCas178(Kar)
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The suit filed for recovery of money from the bank which bank has allowed a forged cheque of the plaintiff to be honoured, was dismissed by the trial court, on the ground that the plaintiff was negligent in keeping unused cheque leaves which were stolen, and which later came to be used by forgery.2. The plaintiff is a customer of Syndicate Bank-defendant and he was having a savings bank account. It is alleged that a forged cheque was entertained by the defendant-bank and the amount was paid out of the plaintiffs savings bank account to a third person. Therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of that money.3. The defence of the bank was that the cheque which was cleared was in favour of one Baridbaran Roy who was a steward at Jayamahal Palace Hotel, working under the plaintiff. The cheque was issued towards payment of his salary. The plaintiff had kept his cheque book negligently, thereby permitted the third person to misuse the same wrongly for which the defe...
Andavar Finance Corporation Vs. V. Murthy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant236
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The suit is in respect of a chit transaction out of which payment was made to the defendant and which was evidenced by a promissory note. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, and the dismissal is challenged before me in this revision petition.2. So far as execution of the promissory note is concerned, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the promissory note has been executed and [he defendant had failed to prove that no consideration passed under it. It is further submitted that the question of registration of the firm was not taken in the written statement but still the Court took it as a point, suo motu and held it against the plaintiff.3. The learned counsel for the respondents relied heavily on the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sriram Finance Corporation v. Yasin Khan reported in AIR 1989 SC 1765 to the following effect:'In the present case, the suit filed by appellants is hit by Section 69(2) of Partnership Act, a...
Karnataka Bank Limited, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)KarLJ396
ORDER1. The petitioners in these petitions call in question the validity of notices issued by the concerned Inspectors of the Department of Weights and Measures, directing production of weighing instrument used by them for verification and stamping under the provisions of the Karnataka Weights and Measures Act, 1958. The challenge primarily rests on the plea that the petitioner-Bank does not make use of the weighing instrument in connection with any trade or commercial transaction so as to attract the provisions of Section 11 of the Mysore (now Karnataka) Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 under which the notices have been issued.2. At the hearing today the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner was slightly different. It was conceded that since Karnataka Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958 was no longer in operation with the coming into force of Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (Central Act 54 of 1985), the validity of the impugned n...
Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Crown Oil and Dal Industries
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: [2002]109CompCas468(Kar)
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The defendant prima facie appears to be playing with the court. The defendant questions the order passed by the trial court regarding maintainability of the suit on the ground that it is covered under Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. 2. The suit was filed for money for goods supplied and delivered for Rs. 4,77,735.96. As soon as the suit is filed, an application is filed to try issue No. 4 on the question of maintainability of the suit. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable. The trial court, however, held that the suit is maintainable and answering issue No. 4 in the negative directed the other issues to be tried. It is against that order that the present revision is filed by the defendant. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit is for recovery of money, consequently the view taken by the court that section22(1) is not applicable is not correct. On the other hand, it is ...
M/S. Klen and Marshalls Manufacturers and Exporters Limited, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas180(Kar); 2000(2)KarLJ435
ORDER1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 25-7-1998. That is an order issued by the 2nd respondent to Deputy Manager-Credits, I.C.I.C.I. Banking Corporation, Chennai, directing him to produce the documents mentioned therein for the purpose of investigation on a complaint filed with the police alleging that the Directors of the company have forged the signature of Chairman of the company on a letter dated 2-6-1998.2. The petitioner contends that the impugned order passed under Section 91 of the Cr. P.C. is without jurisdiction; that the provisions of Cr. P.C. have no application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir where the cause has arisen; that the petitioner is directly affected by the impugned order as its Bankers will mechanically comply with the demand made therein and that the 2nd respondent-police officer has misused his power. Various other aspects are trave...
Krishna Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ44
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioner challenges Annexure-E order. There was a civil dispute between the predecessor of the petitioner-Jangama Reddy on the one hand and that of the father of the 4th respondent claiming title with respect to the land in Sy. No. 28 situate at Varnasi Village, Bangalore South, Bangalore. That dispute went up to Supreme Court, Jangama Reddy succeeding at all stages. To sustain his claim, he had set up title to the property basing on title acquired relying on the entries in Revenue document. Though disputed, the Court relied on these documents to uphold the claim and pass a judgment in favour of the predecessor of the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, it appears a complaint was made against the predecessor of the petitioner by the 4th respondent this father having died by then) to the Government alleging that the documents relied on by Jangama Reddy are forged, the forgery having been perpetuated by the public servant manipulating the public record and t...
Pruthvi Educational Trust, Bangalore Vs. Bar Council of India, New Del ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1808; 2000(4)KarLJ78
ORDER1. The petitioner-Society applied to the 2nd respondent-University seeking grant of affiliation for a new Law College which the former proposed to establish. Despite a recommendation from the Academic Council and Syndicate of the University supporting the grant the State Government declined to proceed in the matter till the petitioner secured the approval of the Bar Council of India. Aggrieved by the order issued by the Government the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4247 of 1997 in the case of Miranda Education Society (Registered), Bangalore v State of Karnataka and Others, in this Court, and while the same was pending moved an application before the Bar Council seeking its approval. An inspection team deputed by the Council declined to recommend affiliation and so did the Legal Education Committee. The exercise ended in the rejection of the petitioner's request for approval which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 13820 of 1997 in the case of Miranda Education, supra, filed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »