Karnataka Court February 1999 Judgments
M/S. Bright Plastics, Bangalore Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2381; 1999(6)KarLJ640
ORDER1. The petitioner has established a Small Scale Industrial Unit at new Guddadahalli in the suburbs of Bangalore City. It has secured an electric connection from the respondent-Board, which was inspected by the Board authorities on 24th of August, 1987. The inspection revealed that the main cover seal of the energy meter and the impression MTD-2 were tampered with and scratched. A mahazar was drawn up on spot, which was signed by proprietor of the petitioner. The mahazar recorded that the difference between the original seal and the meddled seal with scratches on it were shown to the consumer and that the consumer had made a statement that the matter should not be reported to the Police as he was ready to pay the back-billing charges at penal rates so as to make good the loss suffered by the Board. A back-billing demand was in due course raised by the Assistant Executive Engineer in terms of Annexure-A dated 7th of September, 1987 for a sum of Rs. 1,23,801/-. Aggrieved, the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Nagamma and Another Vs. Ningamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC681; ILR1999KAR2366; 1999(5)KarLJ609
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for the respondent.2. The petitioners are the judgment-debtors in Ex. P. No. 72 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff, Chithapur. They have in this petition challenged the order dated 4-7-1995 passed by the Court below holding that the decree for maintenance obtained by respondent against her husband Chandappa does not extinguish with the death of Chandappa and the decree-holder can create charge over the schedule property and recover the arrears of maintenance of Rs. 4,760/- from the judgment-debtors who are the L.Rs of the deceased husband of the decree-holder and also the decree-holder is entitled to claim subsequent maintenance amount from the Judgment-debtors.3. It is an admitted fact that the respondent has obtained a decree for maintenance against her husband Chandappa Jedi and filed the present execution case. The contention of the petitioners is that after the death of Chandappa, the husband of the respondent, ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhakar and Others Vs. the Land Tribunal, Karkala Taluk, Karkala and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ524
Y. Bhaskar Rao, Actg. C.J.1. These appeals are filed assailing the common order dated 29-7-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the tenants/appellants and allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-Harideesh Rumar.2. The brief facts of the case are that the lands bearing Sy. No. 162/1 measuring 2 acres 11 cents and Sy. No. 176/2 measuring 8 cents situated in Gandhinagar, Marapady Village, Moodabedri, Karkala Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District are shown as Punja lands in the records of rights. According to the appellants, they are Chalgeni Tenants. That the late Sesu Poojary the father of the appellants filed an application under Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The respondent-Harideesh Kumar claimed the land as owner on the basis of a gift deed from his grandfather. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the appellant's father by an order dated 25-4-1981. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1999
Reported in: [2000]119STC112(Kar)
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of Entry Tax Revision Petition Nos. 838-839 of 1996 as they arise from the common order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, involving common questions of law and fact.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (hereinafter called 'the Act') carrying the business of selling sowing seeds. Assessments for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 were concluded by assessment orders dated November 15,1991 and January 28,1992 respectively. Assessing authority subjected 'cloth bags' which were brought in the city limits by the petitioner for packing the seeds to entry tax under the Act, even though petitioner claimed exemption thereon, being not specified under entry 16-A(v) of the Schedule to the Act. Details of the turnover subjected to tax besides the imposition of penalty are as under :Year Turnover Tax Penalty1988-89 13,27,948 26,759 20,7011989-90 21,10,200 42,204 32,5533. Aggrieve...
Tag this Judgment!K.Y. Siddaraju Vs. the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras and A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2105; 1999(3)KarLJ292
ORDER1. Heard. This revision is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 72 of 1991 filed against the Trial Court's order made on his LA. VI filed under Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC, in the following terms.-- 'Plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit without any liberty to file a fresh suit. And hence the suit is dismissed'.2. The said I.A. VI was made by the plaintiff in his O.S. No. 72 of 1991 praying for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. 3. On consideration of the pleadings, the Trial Court was of the opinion that, permission to withdraw the suit could be granted to the petitioner/plaintiff but not the permission to file a fresh suit. 4. This Court in the case of Bhutha v Baburao, has quoted with approval, the ruling of High Court of Madras in Thadi Konda Veeraswami v Thulium Peda Lakshmudu and Others^ and proceeded to lay down the proposition as quoted herein below.-- 5. I find considerable force in the contention of Shri Cheluvara...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kabini Papers Limited (In Liquidation), Bangalore Vs. M.D. Shivan ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas675(Kar); 1999(3)KarLJ378
ORDER1. This is a misfeasance proceedings against the Directors of a limited Company that is in liquidation.2. The case involves an interesting issues concerning the interpretation of two of the sections of the Companies Act, viz., Section 458A and Section 543(2); both of which revolve around the question as to what precisely is the period of limitation within which the official liquidator is permitted to institute proceedings before a judicial forum in such cases.3. There is no dispute about the fact that the winding up petition was presented before the High Court on 26-5-1987 and that a winding up order came to be passed on 7-4-1988. Simultaneously the official liquidator was appointed as liquidator of the company on the same day. The present application under Section 543(2) has been filed before the High Court on 19-9-1994. The application is contested and, on behalf of some of the Directors a preliminary objection has been canvassed viz., that the application has been presented bey...
Tag this Judgment!Mehaboob Basha Vs. the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: I(2000)ACC138; 2000ACJ784; 1999(5)KarLJ607
ORDER1. The petitioner and others filed application before the first respondent seeking compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act in connection with the injuries sustained by them in an accident. By an order at Annexure-A, dated 9-7-1996 the first respondent awarded compensation of Rs. 39,412-00 to the petitioner and Rs. 5,600-00 to the 2nd re-spondent-Basha. On the application made by the 2nd respondent that the compensation amount has been wrongly interchanged inasmuch as the compensation payable to him has been awarded to the petitioner and that the amount payable to the petitioner has been awarded to him, the first respondent, exercising the powers under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC, has changed the compensation amount as sought by the 2nd respondent under the impugned order at Annexure-B. This has resulted in reduction of the compensation amount of Rs. 39,412-00 to Rs. 5,600-00 to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition cha...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Narayanamma and Others Vs. Smt. Mayamma and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2456; 1999(5)KarLJ694
1. The first plaintiff, daughter of one Muni Chowdappa and the second and third plaintiffs, her sons and grandsons of said Muni Chowdappa have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below wherein their suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed on the ground that they are the only legatees under the Will executed by the aforesaid Muni Chowdappa, and that Muni Chowdappa had 3 daughters and the first plaintiff is the last daughter.2. It is claimed that on 20-4-1987 there was a registered Will executed by Muni Chowdappa in favour of the first plaintiff and her two sons, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs bequeathing his entire property in their favour to the exclusion of both other daughters.3. The Will was denied by the defendants raising a contention that Muni Chowdappa was not in a sound disposing state of mind and body. He was sufficiently old and sickly person. It was contended that Muni Chowdappa was not competent to Will away specified items of pr...
Tag this Judgment!Nivedita V. Karanje and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ583
ORDER1. The petitioners herein had appeared at the First Year Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (B.H.M.S.) conducted by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, held in the month of May 1998. But they were declared failed since they had not secured the minimum pass marks of 50%. Subsequently, they had made a representation before the University to grant grace marks, in view of the letter dated 9-7-1997 written by the Secretary of the Central Council of Homeopathy (Annexure-A) under which a discretion was given to the University to grant grace marks upto 3% or 10 marks whichever is less, to the students who have failed only in one subject and have passed in all other subjects.2. The letter dated 9-7-1997 at Annexure-A seems to have been written pursuant to some discussions which had taken place in a meeting ofthe Central Council. Since the petitioners have not received any favourable reply or action from the University, they have approached this Court under the writ ju...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Komal S. Padukone Vs. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore Ci ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1999
Reported in: II(1999)DMC301; ILR1999KAR2811; 1999(5)KarLJ667
ORDER1. The second respondent is the husband and the petitioner is the wife. The husband filed MC No. 401 of 1998, on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, against the wife, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce, on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The husband sought leave of the Family Court to be represented through a Counsel. Accordingly, the Court permitted the husband to be represented by Counsel from the inception of the case.2. At the time when the divorce petition was filed, the wife was staying at Mumbai, with her parents. The Family Court issued a notice to her to her Mumbai address, calling upon her to appear before the Court on 3-8-1998. By then the wife obtained a job in USA and left the country in July 1998 itself. The notice of the proceedings was served on the wife's father.3. The wife made two applications before the Family Court on 12-11-1998 - IA II under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act'), ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »