Karnataka Court February 2000 Judgments
Rukmayya Gowda and Others Vs. Subbanna Gowda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ619
ORDER1. The L.Rs of the second plaintiff, plaintiffs (f), (g), (h), (i) have preferred the above revision being aggrieved by the rejection of the application under Order 6, Rule 17 by the Trial Court.2. The suit was one for partition and I.A. XVI was filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint regarding the Will dated 25-2-1986 propounded by them. The Trial Court considered the affidavit filed by the petitioners in I.A. V and orders passed by the Court earlier to the following effect:'Due execution of the Will and genuineness thereof are proved but the Will is not valid and binding in view of decision in Thimmakka Kom Venkanna Naik v The Land Tribunal and Others. In view of this, steps have to be taken for bringing the L.Rs of Ramanna Gowda as per law'.The Trial Court also considered the dictum of this Court in Smt. Vrushendramani v K. Venugopal Rai, wherein it has been held as follows: 'That decision given by a Court at an earlier stage of a case is binding at a later stag...
Tag this Judgment!A. Keshava Bhat Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-2000
Reported in: (2001)166CTR(Kar)421; ILR2001KAR2126; [2001]247ITR83(KAR); [2001]247ITR83(Karn); [2001]115TAXMAN208(Kar)
Ashok Bhan J.1. The appellant is a practising advocate. He is an income-tax assessee from the year 1989-90 onwards. For the assessment year 1989-90, he had declared his gross income at Rs. 45,000. For the assessment year1990-91, the gross income returned was Rs. 1,00,000, and for the year 1991-92, the gross receipt was shown at Rs. 1,15,000. After allowing the permissible deductions, the assessments were framed for all the three years. Thetax was paid.2. Admittedly, for the year 1991-92, the appellant had not maintained books of account. A show-cause notice under Section 271A read with section 273B of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), was issued to him requiring him to explain as to why the penalty be not levied for not complying with the provisions of Section 44AA read with rule 6F(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules')..3. The appellant filed his reply to the show-cause notice stating thereinthat because of the proviso to rule 6F(1) he was not requir...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Mahadevaprasad and Others Vs. Mahadevaiah and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR462; 2001(1)KarLJ23
ORDER1. This revision petition is against an order refusing to render police help for enforcement of the order passed by the Court earlier. The reason given by the Trial Court is unacceptable and it is settled principle of law that police help is a must. In fact the Trial Court itself has referred to the following dictum in Narasimhappa v Hanumanthappa, which is as follows:'If there is order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff and if the defendants violate the order of injunction, there is appropriate provision in the Code for taking action against the persons violating the order of the Court. Hence, the Court is not rightin directing the police to implement the order of temporary injunction. The police are not the authorities to enforce the order of theCourt'.The Calcutta High Court in the case in Mrs. Ajit Kumar Ray v Jnanendra Nath Dey and Others, has observed that the prayer for police help may be made by the decree-holder either in an application under Rule 97 or 98...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Somaiah Vs. the Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Revenue Depar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant374; 2000(5)KarLJ501
1. These two appeals had been listed before me by the office with note that paper book in Appeal No. 479 of 1997 had not been Filed. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no need to file paper book in this case as the decision of the appeal may hinge on a short point as to whether the plaintiff/appellant in R.F.A. No. 479 of 1997 had been entitled to the interest keeping in view the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15705 of 1988 decided on 7th August, 1989 and whether the Court below was justified in passing that decree for the sum in question. The learned Counsel further contended whether the plaintiff is entitled for future interest or not, the learned Government Counsel submittedthat so far as Government's appeal is concerned, Government has already filed paper book. Both the learned Counsel wanted that appeals may be disposed of at the earliest. Appellant's Counsel in Appeal No. 479 of 1997 said that the matter has been pending since 1993 in the Civil Court and ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Sneha Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, Krishnagiri, Tami ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ862; ILR2000KAR2792; 2000(6)KarLJ40
1. The appeal is taken up with the consent of the parties.2. The appellant is aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in M.V.C. No. 1754 of 1993. The appellantchallenges the finding on the issue with regard to negligence and for enhancement of compensation.3. The injured in this case was a minor child of 6 years old. The Tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to Rs. 41,000/-. However the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company and the owner were not liable since the negligence was not proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.4. The Tribunal forgot that as far as the minor children are concerned, the question of negligence need not be strictly proved. The Tribunal erred in holding that negligence will have to be strictly proved in the case of a minor child.5. In this case, admittedly the child was hardly 6 years old and the child was crossing the road with the help of a maid servant when the accident occurred. There was a duty cast on the driver of ...
Tag this Judgment!The City Municipal Council, Shimoga Vs. Smt. Lakshmamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant238; ILR2000KAR1298; 2000(3)KarLJ4
Ashok Bhan, J.1. City Municipal Council, Shimoga (for short, the 'appellant') has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Single Judge allowing W.P.No. 6573 of 1991, decided on 26-11-1998.2. Facts:3. Late Chikkanna alias Chikkappa was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 121/1 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas of Kallahalli Village, Shimoga Taluk. Respondents herein are the Legal representatives of the said late Chikkappa being the wife and children. The land belonging to the respondents and other landowners was acquired in the year 1964 for extension of Shimoga City (called as Vinoba Nagar, I Stage). The posses-sion of the land was taken during 1964-65 and the appellant formed layout and distributed sites to the public.4. Some of the land owners whose lands were acquired filed writ petition before this Court challenging the acquisition. During the pendency of these writ petitions, in order to resolve the dispute, appellant executed a scheme. It was resolved on 31-3-1968 to al...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Regional Tra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ652
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No. 1353 of 1999, dated 19-11-1999.2. Facts: The petitioner sought for a permit on the route Sullia -Mandikolu before Regional Transport Authority, Mangalore. Regional Transport Authority granted a permit vide Resolution dated 23-8-1999 in Sub. No. 2/99/2000. The second respondent, aggrieved by the said resolution filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 32153 of 1999 which was rejected on the ground of an alternative remedy. Further, second respondent filed a revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) before the third respondent. His main ground of attack was that his application for grant of a permit was still pending and hence, without considering his application, the Regional Transport Authority could not have granted the permit in favour of the Corporation.3. The Tribunal, afte...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Vs. Sri Bhagyashree Finance Corporation (Registered), Bijapur a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ169
ORDER1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1994, passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., Bijapur in Small Cause Suit No. 187 of 1993 holding the defendants to be liable to pay the decretal amount and thereby granting four equal half yearly instalments to pay the same with single default clause, the 1st defendant has come forward with the present CRP.2. Heard Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Anneppanavar, Counsel for R-1A to 1B and Sri I.R. Biradarfor respondents 2 and 3.3. In a suit for recovery of money due on the basis of a promissory note, the petitioner herein contended that though he took the loan of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff on 4-5-1988, the suit filed on 9-12-1991 is barred by limitation. The other defence was that in the event of Court coming to the conclusion that the loan is still payable, the defendant be granted to pay the same in yearly instalment and at the rate of Rs. 500/-per year since ...
Tag this Judgment!Gowramma and Others Vs. Upendra Padiyar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ566
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is preferred by the L.Rs of the defendant against the order dismissing the LA. No. VI and holding that the suit is one for permanent injunction and no tenancy question is involved in this suit. Therefore the suit cannot be stayed under Section 132 or 133 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 2. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the dictum of the Division Bench in Mallayya Murigayya v Puttappa Shivappa, to the following proposition of law: 'Section 133 as amended in 1976 provides that when the question before the Court is whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the suit land from prior to 1-3-1974, then the Court shall stay such suit insofar as such question is concerned and refer the same for decision by the Tribunal. Section 133 applies to all such cases irrespective of the fact that the person who claims to be the tenant is a plaintiff or a defendant. Thus, in a ca...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lachawwa Alias Laxmavva Vs. Pandappa Hanamappa Shiragavi and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-2000
Reported in: 2000(6)KarLJ160
ORDER1. It is indeed an unfortunate case wherein the Trial Court at the end of the trial raised a question of jurisdiction that too the pecuniary jurisdiction, even without the defendant raising the same. Holding that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction, Court directed the plaintiff to re-present the plaint before Court of the competent jurisdiction and dismissed the suit as a whole.2. I shall just repeat my observations in a case reported in Narasimha Reddy v Narasimha Reddy and Others , at page 103:'It is indeed a very sorry state of affairs that the Trial Court in a suit for partition has framed as many as 10 main issues and two additional issues and has chosen to hold that Issues 1 to 9 does not survive and Issue 2 is not answered at all. He has taken into consideration only the issue regarding the suit as if barred by res judicata and whether the suit is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code'.The above decision is applicable to the way the present case is disposed of. Re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »