Karnataka Court January 2001 Judgments
A. Harihara Ayyar Vs. State Bank of India, Central Office, Bombay and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1896; 2001(1)KarLJ325; (2001)IILLJ627Kant
ORDERA retired employee/officer of State Bank of India, is before this Court inter alia seeking the following reliefs:(a) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash the impugned communication dated 4-10-1996 issued by the third respondent in No. Br/Gen/262 (Annexure-B).(b) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Rule 3(1)(a) of the State Bank of India Retired Employees' Medical Benefit Scheme to the extent it imposes condition of 30 years of pensionable service to be entitled for the benefit of the scheme and consequently, declare and direct respondents to treat those, who are eligible for payment of pension under the State Bank of India Employees' Pensionary Fund Rules as eligible to the membership of the State Bank of India Retired Employees' Medical Benefit Scheme.(c) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to amend the Rules governing the Membership to the State Bank of India Retired Employees' Medical Benef...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumala Agencies and Another Vs. Samala Mareppa and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2692; ILR2001KAR737
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The petitioner sought for quashing of the order of the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bellary in C.C. No. 167 of 2000 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. The petitioner 1 issued a cheque in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- drawn on Vyshya Bank Limited, Main Branch, Bangalore Road, Bellary. The respondent presented the cheque for realisation of the amount and the same was bounced with an endorsement 'account closed'. Thereafter, the respondent issued a legal notice on 20-4-2000 and presented a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bellary, considering the materials on record held that the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are ma...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shankarappa Vs. K.G. Gangadharaiah (Deceased by L. Rs.) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant203; ILR2001KAR2292
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against I. A. Nos. 25 and 26 in O. S. No. 189/85 as suit for partition.2. I. A. No. 25 is filed under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC to bring on record the respondents- 1 (a to h) and I. A. No. 26 is filed under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC to set aside the abatement of the suit. The Trial Court has allowed both the applications and aggrieved by the same, the first defendant is before this Court in the above Civil Revision Petition.3. It is stated that one Gangadharalah was a philanthropist and he died leaving a will on 23-6-1984 in which he directed that a Trust to be constituted with respondents 1(a to h) as the trustees and the Trust shall take over his estate. It is further claimed that the Trust has come into being on 6-10-1995 and the respondents mentioned above have become its trustees. Consequently, they sought the permission of the Court to come on report to contest the case and for setting aside the abatement. The Tria...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Durga Distilleries Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]123STC487(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides in this appeal. The appellants are manufacturers of Fenny and it was alleged that a suppression was detected during the assessment year July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987. The date of detection is material because it was on December 13, 1986 that the intelligence authority notice that the value of the suppression amounted to Rs. 1,26,300. The assessing authority has added on an equivalent amount and proceeded on the basis that it would be rational to assume that a pattern had been detected and that consequently, the suppression should be valued at Rs. 2,52,600 which is double the value of the suppression that was originally detected. The submission canvassed is that in the first instance there is nothing to indicate that the assessee would have proceeded in the same manner for the remaining period and more importantly that it is most unlikely that anything of this sort would happen once the detection has taken place and th...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Associates Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-2001
Reported in: [2001]122STC134(Kar)
M.F. Saldakha, J.1. The appellants before us claim exemption in respect of a consignment of coffee beans that had been sold to Ramesh Exports who are an export house based at Bangalore. In support of their plea that the goods were in fact exported, they produced the requisite form H and the bills of lading. The assessing authority disallowed the exemption claimed by an order dated April 17, 1996 principally on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish the factum of export within the framework of the requirement of Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Rule 12(10)(a) of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules of 1957. The appellants thereafter preferred an appeal and the appellate authority by order dated August 23, 1996 allowed the appeal. The appellate authority proceeded on the footing that Ramesh Exports was a reputed export house regularly engaged in the export of coffee beans and that it had been pointed out that the consignment was e...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindra N. Tantry Vs. Shivaleela and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-01-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC125; 2001ACJ1906; ILR2001KAR1676; 2001(6)KarLJ132
The Court 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant who was second respondent before the lower Court against the L.Rs. of the deceased Basappa Banatti and the Insurance Company. 2. In brief the grounds of appeal are as follows: The Tribunal was wrong in holding that the appellant who was the driver of the vehicle in question as responsible for the accident in question. To come to such conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of those who were not even the eye-witnesses. Thus, the finding, thatthe appellant as guilty for the death of Basappa Banatti is erroneous. The very evidence of P.W. 4, the so-called eye-witness makes it clear that he was not even an eye-witness to the incident. Tribunal gravely erred in considering his evidence. 3. As a matter of fact, the appellant who deviated his vehicle to avoid the boy coming into contact with the vehicle, the vehicle came into contact with a pole, therefore he never touched or dashed late Basappa Banatti. The non-examination of the i...
Tag this Judgment!E. Mallanagowda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-01-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR718; 2001(6)KarLJ106
ORDER1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 9-12-1997 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (3rd respondent herein) has approached this Court in this writ petition.2. The brief facts are as follows.--The petitioner claims to be in possession of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 66/3 and 69 measuring 4 acres 11 guntas and 19 acres 30 guntas respectively of Itagi Village in Hospet Taluk. According to the petitioner, Itagi Village is an Ex-Inam Estate village and as per the notification dated 28-6-1988 issued by the Government of Karnataka exercising its power conferred under sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Madras Act') and he applied for grant of Ryotwari Patta. Similarly, the 4th respondent as well as her father-in-law G. Sanna Thimmanagouda also filed similar applications. By the order dated 30-12-1995 the Settlement Officer appointed under the Madras Act, al...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Durga Distillery Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-01-2001
Reported in: [2001]122STC170(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated May 27, 1997 of the revisional authority, i.e., Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore Zone, Mysore. The authority had set aside an appellate order of the Additional J.C.C.T, (Appeals), Bangalore dated June 30, 1994 and had restored the order of the assessing authority dated April 29, 1989. It is material to point out that the order in question concerned the assessment period July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986.2. We shall refer only to a few of the relevant facts. The appellant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. He is a manufacturer of fenny which being sold by him in bottled and packed condition during the relevant period. The assessing authority levied the tax on the total turnover value of the fenny which included the packing material and disallowed the claim by the appellant for the value of the packing material. We need to straight away point out that the amendment t...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Thippawwa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-01-2001
Reported in: I(2002)ACC717; 2002ACJ717
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. This M.F.A. is preferred by the insurance company against the judgment and award dated 20.7.1990 passed in M.V.C. No. 4 of 1988 by the M.A.C.T., Belgaum at Belgaurn.2. The short facts are that there was an accident on 30.9.1987 while the claimant was travelling in autorickshaw bearing registration No. MEH 7865 belonging to the respondent No. 2 driven by the respondent No. 1, which resulted in compound fracture of tibia and fibula. The autorickshaw dashed against a parked bullock-cart. Claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,25,500, the claimant came to the court and the Tribunal has chosen to award a global compensation of Rs. 40,000 against all the respondents directing in particular the respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal, namely, the insurance company primarily liable to pay the said award amount.3. The appeal preferred by the insurance company confined only to the apportionment of liability under Section 95 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. No other point wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›