Karnataka Court September 2001 Judgments
Canara Bank, Chamarajamohalla Branch, Mysore District Vs. M.D. Chikkas ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant100; [2003]115CompCas542(Kar); ILR2001KAR5104; 2001(6)KarLJ334
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The appellant, in this appeal, is a Nationalised Bank and plaintiff before the Trial Court. In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 17th April, 1995 made in O.S. No. 43 of 1991 by the Court of Civil Judge at Mysore to the extent it has rejected the claim of the appellant for grant of interest at 16 per cent per annum on the suit claim till the date of realisation.2. In the course of this judgment, the parties will be referred to with reference to their ranking in the Trial Court.3. Few facts which may be relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be stated as hereunder:(a) Suit O.S, No. 43 of 1991 was instituted by the plaintiff on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Mysore for recovery of sum of Rs. 6,14,581-00 with costs and current and future interest at 16 per cent per annum compounded half-yearly from the date of the suit till the date of payment. According to the averments made in par...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Rural District and Marketing Co-operative Society Limited an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant67; 2002(1)KarLJ572
ORDERThe Court 1. The Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'BMP') issued notification at Annexure-A, dated 12-6-2000 inviting tenders for the supply of sports equipments. The terms and conditions of the tender are specified in Annexure-Al. The petitioners, which are co-operative societies, submitted their tenders within the specified time. Respondents 3 and 4 submitted their tenders after the deadline fixed at 3-00 p.m. on 30-6-2000. The petitioners filed their objections to the tenders of respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that their tenders are belated. It is alleged that in order to facilitate them, another notification at Annexure-F was issued. The same was challenged in W.P. No. 37871 of 2000. This Court quashed the notification at Annexure-F and directed the authorities to consider all the applications as per the tender notification. Thereafter, certain representations were filed by the petitioners requesting to consider all the applications. It is alleged that w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore Vs. Lamina Foundries Limited ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: 2001(78)ECC323; 2000LC17(Karnataka); 2001(134)ELT353(Kar); 2001(5)KarLJ545
ORDER1. This reference application has been filed under Section 35G(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act'). According to the Department, the following question of law arises out of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (CEGAT); which requires to be considered by this Court.-'1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in extending the benefit of capital goods to 'electric cables' under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when are not used in the manufacture of final products?'2. The assessee, M/s. Lamina Foundries Limited, was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, during the period October 1994 to January 1995. It had availed the MODVAT credit of Rs. 1,01,1017- on electrical cables which were used for their manufacturing purposes. The assessee claimed the said MODVAT benefits under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules.3. Rule 57-Q reads as under:'57-Q. Applicability.--(1) the provisions of this sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Gurusiddamma Vs. Hanumanthappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR612; 2002(1)KarLJ478
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Advocates for both the contesting parties as also the learned Government Advocate on merits.2. The short point involved in this appeal and one which is of some consequence particularly in the litigation relating to the land reforms, where the cases have been shuttling between the Tribunal and the High Court with continuous regularity without being disposed off at either of the two ends, is whether the grounds on which the remands are ordered would require some level of scrutiny. The present case is a classic instance where on the previous occasion the High Court granted a remand on the application of the claimant who had contended that he desires to lead additional evidence. Without going into the question as to why the evidence was not lead earlier and what was the nature of the evidence, the High Court accepted the submission of the learned Counsel and remanded the case. It is quite significant for us to note that despite this solitary gr...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanthi Vs. Pch Marketing Services, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4438; ILR2002KAR2429; 2001(6)KarLJ63
ORDERThe Court 1. Petitioner is the accused in these cases facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance because the order relating to taking cognizance is commonly typed in all the cases and sworn statement is recorded in readily typed formats withblanks filled up. However, undesirable the practice of filling up of blanks in respect of sworn statement may be, I am of the opinion that taking all the circumstances together, in these cases, there is definitely application of mind. Learned Magistrate has got the relevant order portion relating to taking up of cognizance typed, and, therefrom it is absolutely clear that he has noted about the complainant being present, about the cognizance being taken, about recording sworn statement, and then posting it for further orders. It is on the next date that h...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Narasimha Murthy Vs. Harish Kumar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant116; ILR2001KAR4630; 2001(6)KarLJ1
1. One V.R. Narasimha Murthy-appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 16340 of 1999, dated 15-12-2000. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits the discretion was exercised in favour of respondent 1 considering to be a mandate of this Court and the time was extended and delay was condoned without applying mind. The same is liable to be set aside as the discretion so exercised is not judicious one and the order of the Division Bench dated 28-6-2001 directing the Corporation to reconsider and decide the issue afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant, needs no interference.2. The learned Counsel for the first respondent-petitioner, Harish Kumar, submits that the appellant had also participated in the auction of LPG distributorship in pursuance of the notification dated 20-2-1999 and was unsuccessful bidder. The first respondent who was the highest bidder had to deposit the remaining amount on or before 30-3-1999. On accoun...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Labs Private Limited, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and Ot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)KarLJ604
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioner in this petition is seeking for the following reliefs on thefollowing facts:'Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:(a) Quashing the term/condition relating to the requirement of 3 years market standing in respect of drugs sought to be purchased and sought to be offered for purchase in the tender notification dated 19-2-2001 in No. GNS(1)/2/1999-2000(RC 1/2000-2003) issued by respondent 2 and also the condition requiring certain items to be in Alu-Alu Blister found in the corrigendum in Annexure-B issued by respondent 2 and further directing the respondents to consider the tender to be submitted by the petitioner without insisting upon the aforesaid two conditions, and(b) Allow this writ petition with costs and grant such other reliefs as this Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case'.2. Petitioner is a drug manufa...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Vanivilasa Rural Education Vidya SamsThe and anr. Vs. L.S. Mallika ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR4921; 2002(1)KarLJ43
ORDERThe Court1. This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC against the order dated 18-6-1999 passed in MA (EAT) No. 13 of 1997 by the Principal District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Chitradurga.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows.--3. The first petitioner is the President and the second petitioner is the Secretary of Sri Vanivilasa Rural Education Vidya Samsthe, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The said Society is running a High School, namely 'Sri Vanivilasa Gramaanthara Prouda Shaale' at Aranakatte in Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. It is an aided institution admitted to grant-in-aid.4. In the year 1993, the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Chitradurga by his order dated 4-12-1992 permitted the petitioner-Institution to fill up the post of teachers including the post of Grade I Physical Instructor as Teacher for additional section. Annexure-A is such notification. Pursuant to the order of th...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Babu and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ4435; I(2003)DMC416; ILR2002KAR228; 2002(1)KarLJ218
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for an order to quash the F.I.R. lodged under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in response to a complaint made by the 3rd respondent in Vijayanagar Police Station, dated 22-7-2001 and prevent the 1st respondent going to the petitioners houses and their working places and harassing. 2. The petitioners are none other than the relatives of the husband, Sri K. Naresh Babu, who is the husband of the 3rd respondent. According to the petition averments, the first petitioner is married to the 3rd respondent in the year 1992. They are staying separately at Tiptur. The 3rd petitioner is the sister-in-law of the 3rd respondent. According to the petition averments, the husband of the 3rd respondent suffered an accident and instead of taking good care of the 1st petitioner, the 3rd respondent was negligent to her husband and she has taken a decision to be away f...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Samsthan Mahabaleshwar Dev, Gokarna Vs. the Divisional Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2296; 2002(2)KarLJ173
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The validity and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, is sought to be challenged in this appeal preferred by the appellant-Temple.2. Every year during Mahashivarathri Festival, the Temple conducts a jatra which is attended by a large number of persons. During the year 1988 the jatra was scheduled to take place from 11-2-1988 to 19-2-1988. As the gathering in the jatra used to be very large, it necessitated on the part of respondent 3, Mandal Panchayat, to make special arrangements for public health, safety or convenience. The third respondent having tentatively fixed a certain sum held a meeting with the Managing Trustee of the Temple and in the said meeting the probable expenditure likely to be incurred for making arrangements during the jatra was determined as Rs. 37,700/-. The third respondent, thereafter, acting under Section 76 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchay...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »