Karnataka Court February 2000 Judgments
Mrs. Zita Farias Vs. Patrick E.P. Mascarenhas and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ23
1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. She had filed the suit for partition and allotment and delivery of 1/11th share in the plaint 'A' Schedule properties which admittedly belonged to her father.2. Plaintiff and defendants are children of late Boniface Cashmir Leopard Mascarenas, who died on 4-10-1974 leaving behind him his wife, six sons (defendants 1 to 6) and five daughters viz., plaintiff and defendants 7 to 10. The father left behind him a Will dated 1-12-1972 (Ex. P. 1) which was duly probated in respect of which a probate was granted by the Court on 1-7-1985 after issuance of notice to all contesting parties. The probate has been placed on record as Ex. P. 2.3. After grant of probate the present suit was brought by the plaintiff seeking partition of the immoveable properties on the ground that the terms of the Will were uncertain inasmuch as the father had not specified the share of the daughters in plaint 'A' Schedule properties.4. Paragraph 7 of the Will Ex. P. 1 co...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Ningachari and A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC125; 2001ACJ366; [2000(85)FLR758]; ILR2000KAR1321; 2000(5)KarLJ32; (2000)IILLJ538Kant
1. An accident took place at the work spot and the claimants in these proceedings suffered certain injuries. They moved the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, seeking compensation. An award of compensation was made by the Commissioner in each case wherein while awarding interest at 12% from the date of accident, the insurance company was made liable to pay the same. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal, challenging the order insofar as it makes them liable to pay interest from the date of the award.2. The only point urged by the Insurance Company is that the fastening of the liability to pay the interest is illegal, in that it can arise only 30 days after the quantification of the compensation by the Commis-sioner and that from thirty days after the sustaining the injury and till quantification of the quantum, the liability to pay the interest is on the employer. This is the only point urged in these appeals.2-A. I have heard Mr. S.P. Shankar, learned Counsel for the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Flora Margaret Vs. A. Lawrence
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ27
1. This is plaintiffs appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 3-4-1997 given by X Additional City Civil Judge (Sri K.H. Malleshappa), Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 10457 of 1992 (Smt. Flora Margaret v A. Lawrence) dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The facts of the case in Nutshell are:That the plaintiff-appellant filed the above suit claiming decree for declaration declaring the release deed dated 29-11-1990 executed between the plaintiff and defendant to be null and void ab initio. The plaintiff further prayed for a decree in the nature of direction directing the defendant and other persons who are residing along with the defendant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and on their failure to comply with the direction, this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to evict the defendant and others residing in the suit schedule property and handover the vacant possession to the plaintiff-appellant.3. The plaintiff as per the all...
Tag this Judgment!The United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. S. Siddeswar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC764; 2001ACJ1621; 2001(1)KarLJ573
ORDER1. The petitioner in the above C.R.P. has preferred this Civil Revision Petition against the judgment and award dated 17-8-1996 passed in the case MVC No. 776 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural Districts, Bangalore. 2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 6,000/- only against the 2nd and 3rd respondents before the lower Court and ultimately directing the 3rd respondent alone, namely the United Insurance Company Limited, to pay the said amount as against the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the first respondent herein in a motor vehicle accident. Concluding that the driver of the lorry bearing No. MES 5994 is responsible for this accident and the 2nd respondent being the owner of the said lorry is vicariously liable to pay the loss caused by the driver of the lorry and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the lorry is liable to indemnify the loss caused to the 2nd...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvathamma Vs. C. Subramanyam and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ876; AIR2000Kant309; I(2001)DMC498; 2000(6)KarLJ322
1. This order shall dispose of MFA No. 3756 of 1998 and MFA No. 3642 of 1998 filed by two different claims arising from the same judgment and award dated 16-2-1998 in MVC No. 903 of 1994 of the District Judge and MACT, Chitradurga (for short, 'the Tribunal').2. Facts:Deceased Boraiah was the husband of Smt. Boramma-1 and father of Gowramma and Lakshmidevi. He was travelling in a KSRTC bus bearing No. KA.17 F-01 on 25th of May, 1994 at about 9.45 p.m. from Chitradurga to Bharamasagar. The bus met with an accident. Near Laxmisagara the lorry bearing No. AP-03/T-1116 came from the opposite direction at high speed which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The lorry dashed against the KSRTC bus, resulting in the accident and causing grievous injuries to Boraiah; he was immediately taken to C.G. Hospital, Davanagere for treatment, where he died after 3 days i.e., on 28-5-1994 at about 11-45 p.m. He died due to the injuries sustained by him in accident. Boramma-1 and her two daughters ...
Tag this Judgment!Eyelite Optical Industries Vs. Commissioner of Cus.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-2000
Reported in: 2000(71)ECC499; 2000(121)ELT593(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has filed this appeal against the order of the Single Judge in W.P.No. 9153/99 dated 9th of June, 1999 dismissing the petition thereby confirming the order of the Commissioner of Customs (for short, 'the respondent) holding that the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme 1998 (for short, 'the Scheme') would not be applicable to the case of the appellant as he had waived issuance of a show-cause notice.2. In order to appreciate the contention raised, it is necessary to give some of the basic facts which have been spelt out by the appellant in his writ petition.3. Appellant is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of spectacle frames and sun glasses since 1980. In October 1996, the appellant imported certain goods and filed a bill of entry for the clearance of goods. The supplier's invoice indicated the description and quantity of the goods. Appellant had earlier imported identical consignments and ...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Aswathanarayana and Another Vs. the Returning Officer, Somanahall ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4229; 2001(1)KarLJ108
ORDER1. The short but all important question that falls for consideration in these petitions is whether this Court can in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution interfere with the current elections to the Grama Panchayats being held under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Nomination papers filed by the petitioners having been rejected by the Returning Officers concerned, they have questioned the correctness of the said orders and sought directions permitting them to contest the elections. Grievance is also made in some of these petitions against what is described as improper acceptance of the nomination papers of the candidates. The burden of arguments advanced at considerable length by learned Counsel for the petitioners was that since the rejection orders were illegal, this Court could intervene to set aside the same and issue appropriate consequential directions. Reliance was placed upon a Single Bench decision of this Court in Khatib, Irshad Ahmed, ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Rajaiah and Others Vs. State of Karnatka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4989; 2000(6)KarLJ401
ORDER1. Common questions arise for consideration in all these writ petitions, which shall stand disposed of by this common order. The answer to the questions turns on the true import of the 'Doctrine of Pleasure' and the scope of judicial review in cases where the same is invoked. The facts lie in a narrow compass and may be stated at the outset.2. Petitioner in W.P. No. 39747 of 1999 was by an order of the State Government appointed as Chairman of the Urban Development Authority, Hubli whereas petitioners in W.P. Nos. 43249 to 43252 of 1999, 41080 to 41083 of 1999 and 40480 to 40483 of 1999 were similarly nominated as members of the Urban Development Authorities of Haven, Davangere and Shimoga. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 43245 and 43246 of 1999 were nominated as members of City Municipal Council, Shimoga, while petitioners in W.P. Nos. 43128 and 44217 of 1999 were appointed as Chairman of the Town Planning Authorities of Ranebennur and Chintamani. The appointment/nomination of each one ...
Tag this Judgment!Basanagouda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR95; 2000(6)KarLJ526
ORDER1. The common grievance of the petitioners in all these petitions relates to the alleged improper preparation of the electoral rolls for their respective constituencies. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 5450 and 5524 of 2000 are aggrieved by the inclusion of 29 voters in the voters list of the two Grama Panchayat constituencies for which they have filed their nomination papers. Besides a certiorari for quashing the list, they have prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to prepare a fresh list in accordance with law. Petitioner in W.P. No. 5927 of 2000 is also a candidate, who is similarly aggrieved of the preparation of the electoral roll for his constituency. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 5930 to 5934 of 2000 are aggrieved of the exclusion of their names from the voters list for the Hunashikatti Grama Panchayat. Preparation of the voters list for Suryanakanahalli of Hassan District is assailed in W.P. No. 5992 of 2000 on the ground that respondents 3 to 15 in the said petition are min...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaya Enterprises
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR407(KAR); [2001]250ITR407(Karn); [2002]120TAXMAN262(Kar)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dated August 3, 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1986-87 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that 'kist' is neither duty nor tax and, therefore, will not come under the provisions of Section 43B of the Act ?'2. The assessee is an excise contractor. In the assessment for this year, the Assessing Officer disallowed under Section 43B, the 'kist' amounts remaining outstanding as at the end of the relevant accounting year payable by the assessee to the Government- In appeal it was held that 'kist' cannot be considered as tax or duty and, hence, the outstanding 'kist' amount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B.3. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its present order, has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in I. T. A. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »