Karnataka Court October 2002 Judgments

Smt. Basavva (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. Parameshwarappa Mallappa Halli and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ184

M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsels for the contesting parties as also the learned Government Advocate on merits. The question as to whether this Court should entertain an appeal against the order of remand has often been debated, one view being that where a learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion that the Division Bench should ipso facto refuse to entertain an appeal against such an order. It has however been pointed out that in the field of land reforms cases where habitual remands have been the style for the last about twenty years, that there are a good percentage of instances when a remand is thoroughly unjustified and it can be said in favour of the grievance that the opposite party is not only exposed to the trauma, turmoil and expenditure of another long session of litigation before the Tribunal but what it is also exposed to is the grave risk of not knowing what the outcome is going to be, having regard to the quality of the orders that are being t...

Sulabha Vs. Vandana and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004ACJ510

Saldanha, J.1. The appellants before us are the widow and daughters of one S. Bidakar, hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'. On 6.11.1980 he was driving motor car bearing No. MEL 3888 on the National Highway heading for Belgaum on his return from Kolhapur. At about 2.30 a.m. while he was approaching the Nippani Check-Post the car hit the rear of truck bearing No. MEI 4412. This truck was carrying iron rods and as a result of the collision Bidakar sustained serious injuries. He was taken to the hospital but he died soon thereafter. It is also alleged that the cleaner of the truck was in the process of tying the iron rods and that in the course of the same incident the car caused injuries of some seriousness to him. In respect of that incident he has lodged a claim which was adjudicated by the M.A.C.T. and was ultimately settled by the insurer of the car. We are here concerned with the claim for compensation that was preferred by the wife and minor daughters of Bidakar who claim an ...

Kashinath Dikshit Vs. Surgicals and Pharmaceuticals Co. (Mysore) Ltd. ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. This company petition is filed under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('Act' for short), with a request to sanction the scheme of arrangement so as to be binding on all the members, secured creditors and unsecured creditors of the respondent company as well as the respondent-company in liquidation. The first petitioner is though a member of the company is not the propounder of the scheme. The second petitioner who seems to be the propounder of the scheme is neither the shareholder nor the creditor of the company in liquidation.2. M/s. Surgical and Pharmaceuticals Company (Mysore) Limited, the company in liquidation was incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and prior to its winding up by this Court by an order made on 4-8-1980 in Co. P. No. 35/1978, was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of surgical cotton, dressing bandage cloth and gauze cloth, etc. In view of winding up order, the official liquidator attached t...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Renuka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003ACJ1318

R. Gururajan, J.1. These appeals are filed both by the insured as well as the insurer challenging the judgment and award passed by M.A.C.T., Gulbarga, in M.V.C. Nos. 415, 444, 450, 452, 522, 527, 677 and 111 of 1997.2. This court admitted the appeals and ordered interim stay. Matter was posted from time to time. On 5.9.2002, the matter was heard. The learned Counsel for the respondents invites my attention to the latest judgment of the Apex Court with regard to maintainability of the appeal filed by the insured as well as the insurer. In these circumstances, Counsel for the insurance company was asked as to whether he would like to delete any one of the appellants.3. On 17.9.2002 matter was listed for further hearing. On that date, learned Counsel filed a memo stating therein that joint appeals are maintainable and occasion to delete the insurer would not arise and the appeals are to be heard and disposed of on merits. He also relied on several judgments.4. Learned Counsel for the resp...

B.N. Amarnath Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Kar)163; ILR2002KAR5399; [2003]259ITR590(KAR); [2003]259ITR590(Karn)

K.L. Manjunath, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, Bangalore (Salary Ward No. 3(3)) dated October 4, 2000, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The petitioner is an employee in BEML, Bangalore, deriving income mainly from salary. A residential site was allotted to him by the BEML Employees Cooperative Society. The petitioner sold the said site on March 29, 1995, for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 1,76,000. The assessment of the petitioner for the year 1995-96 was completed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act ('the Act' for short), on March 23, 2000, determining the total income of Rs. 1,59,884 which is inclusive of long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,27,210.3. Subsequently, notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was served on the petitioner on the ground that the assessee failed to disclose the long-term capital gains arising out of the s...

Shakti Concrete Blocks and Poles and anr. Vs. Abdulgafar and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ439

ORDERB. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the question of maintainability of the revision petition raised by the office. The office has raised an objection that the civil revision petition filed against an order passed by the Trial Court falls under Order 7, Rule 10 of the CPC and hence an appeal lies and a revision does not lie.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended before me that since this is a revision petition filed against the finding on issue No. 6 of the Trial Court and that the same being erroneous, the revision lies. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Court below having treated Issue No. 6 as a preliminary issue, has recorded a finding on the said issue holding that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and consequently ordered for return of plaint to the plaintiff for its presentation for the Court of competent jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, he contended that the said finding rec...

Snow White Hi-tech Launderette Vs. Smt. Shamantha R. Hariharan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR3105

S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.2. These appeals are filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.8.2002 passed by the learned Additional C.M.M. Bangalore acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence punishable Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. As per the complainant, in respect of the amount due in a sum of Rs. 92,695/-, the respondent had issued 3 cheques drawn on the State Bank of Mysore towards discharge of the legal liability and thereafter, when the cheques were presented, the same were returned for the reason 'payment stopped'. Thereafter, legal notice was issued to the accused and as no amount was paid, the present complaint came to be filed.4. The Complainant has examined himself as P. W. 1 and produced 13 documents. The respondent examined herself as D. W. 1 and got produced Ex. Dl, the Statement of Accounts. The main defence was that, though cheques were issued by her, as the goods supplied were of not proper st...

M.G. Doddegowda and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ455

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners are the members of 5th respondent-Hassan District Vokkaligara Sangha. They have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order at Annexure-N by which Administrator was appointed to the 5th respondent-society for a period of six months. An alternative prayer is made to direct the 2nd respondent to hold election to the governing council of 5th respondent as per the membership as existed on 9-11-2001, the date on which the Administrator was appointed. The grievance of the petitioners is that neither the Administrator nor the Advisory Committee have authority to enrol new members. According to the petitioners, the members enrolled to various categories cannot be treated as members of the society.2. The Administrator was appointed on the report of the 3rd respondent-District Registrar in which it is stated that general body meeting and elections have not been conducted. This Court has already held that enrolment of members by the Administrator...

Kum. D.H. Samudhyatha Vs. Visveswaraiah Technological University (Vtu) ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ265

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner is a graduate in science from Bangalore University. She has secured 49.83% in the optional subjects in the qualifying examination. She applied to the 2nd respondent-college for admission to the Master of Business Administration (MBA) Post-graduate Degree Course of two years duration on 2-8-1999. She was admitted to the 2nd respondent-college. However, she has secured 55% aggregate in qualifying examination. However, the percentage which is relevant for eligibility for admission of MBA Course in the optional subjects is 50%, whereas the petitioner has secured only 49.83%, i.e., shortage of 0.17%.2. The petitioner was admitted, she was permitted to take first semester examination held during April 2000 and the results were announced in May 2000 and she passed through in first class. Thereafter, she completed the second semester course also. When the college forwarded her admission to the University, the first respondent-University did not approve her ad...

M. Shivamurthy Vs. Mallaiah and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2003ACJ1199; 2002(6)KarLJ462

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the claimant who had suffered extensive injuries in a motor accident involving a Government vehicle and whose claim petition before the Tribunal has been dismissed in limine on the premise that the claimant-appellant was not able to identify or establish the vehicle involved in the accident or link up the vehicle belonging to the respondent as the vehicle involved in the accident. 2. The aggrieved claimant is in appeal before us. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are that the claimant was a pillion rider on a motor-cycle bearing Registration No. MEB 7279 owned and ridden by his friend one Krishnappa and were travelling on the said motor-cycle on the 20th May, 1991 from their village to Kollegal and while they were at Sathyagala on the Kollegal-Bangalore road, a jeep bearing Registration No. CAG 403 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, came, and dashed against the motor-cycle as a result of which impact, the claimant...