Karnataka Court March 2001 Judgments
Smt. Rangamma Vs. the Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3722
N. Kumar, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff has preferred the above appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree dated 18-6-19S6 passed in O.S. No. 5252 of 1980 by the learned 14th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code for want of notice under Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act.2. Plaintiffs case is that her husband purchased the site bearing No. 4 formed in Sy. No, 5/2 of Jedahalli Village in the year 1959 under a registered sale deed dated 12-12-1958. It was a revenue site. Plaintiffs husband constructed the present existing building in the year 1971. In fact the Tahsildar P.U.C. issued a notice to the husband of the petitioner for unauthorised construction and for regularisation. Thereafter, theplaintiff's husband paid the necessary fine and got the construction regularised. Thereafter, khatha of the property was transferred in the name of the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Giridhar Kamalpurkar Vs. Dr. Venugopal Ram Rao and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ467
1. The controversies, contentions and claims raised in these writ appeals and connected writ petitions/appeals centres around three service cadres of Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology (in short the 'Institute'). These cadres are of (i) Assistant Surgeons, (ii) Lecturers, and (iii) Assistant Professors. The first two cadres are said to be carrying the same pay-scale but the first consists of non-teaching posts whereas the second consists of teaching posts. The third cadre of Assistant Professor consists of teaching posts. It is immediately higher to the cadre of Lecturers. Till the amendment of the C and R, Rules by the resolution dated 21-3-1994 passed by the Governing Council of the Institute, the post'of Assistant Professor was to be filled by 'selection by promotion' from amongst the Lecturers. Such a promotional avenue was not available to Assistant Surgeons.2. It was because of the above reasons, that various maneuverings were adopted by some of the Assistant Surgeons in order ...
Tag this Judgment!Surendra Prabhu and Another Vs. Sripada Rao Shankararao Patil and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2001ACJ1504; 2001(4)KarLJ344
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 29th of September, 2000 delivered by Sri M. Ramesh Rao, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Davanagere awarding a total sum of Rs. 7,61,500/- in M.V.C. case No. 1370 of 1995. The appeal has been filed by New India Assurance Company Limited with Sri Surendra Prabhu, appellant 1.2. It will be appropriate to mention the facts of the case, in brief as hereunder.-On 28-5-1995 at about 7.30 p.m., on N.H. 4 near Kalapanahalli, the motor accident took place and the offending vehicles in that accident were Car No. KA-03-M-2089 and Mini-Bus No. KA-13-4545, referred in the judgment of the Tribunal as well as the judgment of this Court as 'Car' and 'Mini Bus'. It may be stated that many claim petitions were filed including Claim Petition No. 1370 of 1995. It is the case of theclaimants/petitioners in M.V.C. No. 1370 of 1995 that the deceased was aged 27 years and died on account o...
Tag this Judgment!Girijadevi V. Kadadevamath Vs. Shiddheshwaraiah Madivalayya Kadadmarma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ596
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the second plaintiff-applicant against the order dated 1-10-1999 passed by the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hubli on LA. No. 53 in O.S. No. 51 of 1988, being aggrieved by that portion of the order whereby the learned Civil Judge, while allowing the application, nevertheless, has declined to appoint an alternative receiver in place of the existing receiver who was removed.2. In this appeal, only the twelfth defendant is impleaded as a party respondent. The other defendants to the suit who are not family members but are impleaded as purchasers of some of the properties out of the joint family properties either during the pendency of the suit or earlier, are not made parties.3. The brief facts are that the appellant and her son and daughter had instituted O.S. No. 51 of 1988 for a declaration of their share in the suit schedule properties as against her husband and brothers who all constituted a joint family.4....
Tag this Judgment!Nanjamma Vs. H.N. Siddaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4529; 2002(1)KarLJ239
The Court1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent and Special Tahsildar in Original Suit No. 397 of 1986 for declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit item 1 and for consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit item 2. The suit item 1, which is the subject-matter of the appeal is the land bearing Sy. No. 465/2 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas situated in Algud Village, T. Narasipur Taluk. She contended in the suit that the defendant-respondent herein by means of registered sale deed dated 11-8-1978 sold the suit schedule properly for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,000/-. Though the said sale deed provided for a condition for repurchasing the property by the defendant since the defendant did not repurchase it, the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the property and the first defendant is interfering with her possession. Therefore, the suit.2. The first defendant filed a detailed written statement. He denied the transa...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Construction Co. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC265(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. A point of law of some importance has been thrown up for decision in this set of appeals and we shall briefly summarise it as follows :2. Whether the revisional authority exercising powers under Section 22A of the Act who is undoubtedly invested with the wide jurisdiction to pass in revision such orders as the circumstances of the case may justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment would be within its jurisdiction if in the course of exercising the revisional powers the authority effectively passes an order virtually of reassessment.3. The facts are within a very narrow ambit and are hardly in dispute. The assessee is one Shankar Construction Company, Dharwar, who are civil contractors. Their assessments were concluded by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments) for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 on October 4, 1993, October 5, 1993 and October 7, 1...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Loganathan Vs. Divisional Controller, B.T.S. Division, K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2001
Reported in: III(2002)ACC406
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (CCC-6) Bangalore, in M.V.C. No. 569/1991 dated 3.8.1998, the appellant/claimant is before this Court.2. The accident had occurred on 2.1.1991 at about 9.00 a.m. at the junction of N.R. Road and K.P. Main Road, while the petitioner/appellant herein was driving his TVS. Moped and B.T.S. Bus bearing Registration No. CAF-275, came at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and dashed to the appellant's Moped from hindside, which resulted in injuries to the claimant/appellant herein complained of by the claimant.3. The finding of negligence against the driver of the offending vehicle has become final inasmuch as no appeal has been preferred challenging the same by the owner.4. The injuries sustained by the claimant/appellant are as follows:(1) Contusion of spine (back bone), clinically swelling/deformity on L-4 and L-5 spinements...
Tag this Judgment!Welcomgroup Windsor Manor, Bangalore Vs. the Deputy Regional Director, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1192]; ILR2002KAR2145; 2001(4)KarLJ422; (2001)IILLJ978Kant
1. The appellant is an hotel industry. The officer of the respondent-Corporation, issued a notice under Section 45-A of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) demanding payment of Rs. 52,815/- payable as contribution for the period from April 1987 to March 1988. The said demand was challenged by the appellant by filing an application before the Employees' State Insurance Court at Bangalore under Section 75 of the Act. The said application was dismissed by the ESI Court, by order dated 27-3-1989. This order is under challenge in this appeal.2. Sri Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the contribution so demanded is in respect of the employees of Woodkraft (India) Limited and Blue Star Limited, in respect of whom contribution has also been paid by the respective employers and therefore the ESI Authorities are not right in demanding the contribution twice over from the appellant.3. Admittedly, the appel...
Tag this Judgment!The Sandu Manganese and Iron Ores Limited, Yeshwantnagar, Karnataka Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4420; 2001(4)KarLJ590
1. The appellant (hereinafter also referred to as the 'Company') has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26-3-1999/1-4-1999 passed by the learned Company Judge, in Co.P. No. 168 of 1998 overruling its preliminary objection regarding maintainability, and ordering the petition for winding up to be listed for admission. The appellant and respondent herein will also be referred to as 'Company' and 'Creditor' respectively in this order.2. The respondent herein filed the said petition (Co.P. No. 168 of 1998) under Section 439 read with Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act' for short) alleged that Rs. 34,45,136.32 was due as on 31-5-1997 from the Company in regard to goods supplied by it from time to time; that in spite of service of a notice dated 3-3-1998 issued by it through its Counsel under Section 434(1)(a) of the Act demanding payment, the Company did not make the payment; that the Company should therefore be deemed to be unable to pay its debt under Section 434(1)...
Tag this Judgment!The State Trading Corporation of India Limited, Bangalore Vs. Vanivila ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)KarLJ570
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15-4-1994 in O.S. No. 35 of 1990 on the file of the Civil Judge, Chitradurga. Plaintiff (State Trading Corporation of India Limited) is a company wholly owned by the Central Government. It is engaged in the business of importing/exporting goods of various kinds including sugar, and acts as a canalising agency of Government of India for import/export of various goods. In the course of its business, it purchased, among other things, levy sugar from manufacturers for the purpose of export as per release orders issued by the Government of India at the levy sugar price notified by the Government of India. Defendant is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 running a sugar factory at Hiriyur. For convenience appellant will also be referred to as the 'plaintiff or 'STC' and respondent will also be referred to as the 'defendant'.2. On 12-8-1983 Govern...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »