Karnataka Court December 2002 Judgments
Shri C. Hameed Vs. Union Bank of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC295
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate. The point argued by him is that arrest and detention in prison is a coercive step which the law contemplates only in those cases where a party who possesses requisite resources to discharge the debt is avoiding to do so and the law contemplates a level of permissible pressure and threat of imprisonment to be used in order to ensure the recovery of the dues. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : [1980]2SCR913 (Jolly George Verghese and Anr. v. The Bank of Cochin) wherein the Court had gone into the deeper aspect of whether, in the case of inability to discharge a debt a party can be imprisoned and the Supreme Court held that such imprisonment is unconstitutional. Mr. Nataraj submits that the Bank has not been able to show that the petitioner who is working as a coolie has the resources and the means to discharge the Bank's debt. His submission is that the ora...
Tag this Judgment!Y.R. Shenoy and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR812]; (2003)IILLJ977Kant
N. Kumar, J. 1. As in these Writ Petitions common question of law and facts are involved these petitions are disposed of by a common order. However, for the purpose of clarity the brief facts pertaining to each batch of these writ petitions are set out as hereunder:W.P. Nos. 20780-20789/1997 and W.P, Nos. 13575-92/1997: The petitioners in these Writ Petitions except the petitioner in W.P. No. 13592/1997 were working as officers in Syndicate Bank. The petitioner in W.P. No. 13592/1997 is the widow of one P.S. Krishnaji Rao who died, while in service from the respondent-bank on August 6, 1993 who had put in over 24 years of service in the respondent-bank. All of them have retired between July 1, 1993 to October 31, 1994. On the basis of an agreement called Joint Note entered into on June 23, 1995 between the Unions of Officers and Indian Banks' Association, the service conditions governing the officers of the respondent-bank known as Syndicate Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, w...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmamma and ors. Vs. Riyaz Khan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant197
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioners represented by their power of attorney holder who are some of defendants in Original Suit have filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order dated 2-11-2002 passed by the V Addl. City Civil Judge in OS 6674/98 produced at Annexure-E to the petition and sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the same urging various facts and legal contentions.2. The brief facts are stated for the purpose of considering and answering the rival legal submissions made on behalf of the parties.Respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed suit for permanent injunction on the basis of the alleged agreement of sale dated 28-2-1997 said to have been executed by one Mr. Khasim Khan and children. In the said original suit written statement was filed by the petitioners disputing the genuineness of the documents and further contended that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy. No. 21 of Devarajeevanahalli measuring 2 acres 2...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ravindranath Vs. Smt. Uma S. Poojary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ197
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. A furious legal debate has emanated over the issue that is the subject-matter of this civil revision petition. The petitioner who is the defendant before the Trial Court in a partition suit filed an application for amendment of his written statement whereby he desired to add one paragraph to the effect that the property which is Item No. 1 in Schedule A viz., 'Hotel Sujatha' has been bequeathed to him by virtue of a Will made by his late father. The plaintiffs resisted the application on a variety of grounds, the basic plea being that it is not permissible to alter the structure of the written statement because this plea was not only inconsistent with but diametrically opposed and contradictory to the case originally made out in the written statement. Also, on merits the contention raised was that the plea is an afterthought and is inherently false because his late father had died in and around 1980. The suit was filed in 1989. The original written statement wa...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraju Vs. A.R. Lingaraju and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ242; 2003(2)KarLJ651
S.B. Majage, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant requesting to fasten the liability on the second respondent-Insurance Company and also to enhance the amount of compensation awarded on 12-3-2001 in M.V.C. No. 431 of 1993 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Mandya.2. Regarding first ground, it is argued for the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal committed an error in not fastening liability with the Insurance Company. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company now submits that the vehicle had the valid insurance coverage as on the date of accident. Still important questions namely, in spite of the fact that vehicle has insurance coverage, whether Insurance Company can plead before the Tribunal that vehicle had no insurance coverage and whether an adverse inference can be drawn against Insurance Company when it fails to produce record of insurance policy when called upon, more so, in the absence of participation in the proceedings by the owner of vehicle requir...
Tag this Judgment!Boraiah Alias Shekar Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)ALD(Cri)951; 2003CriLJ1031
Padmaraj, J. 1. This is a reference to the full bench by the Division Bench of this Court involving a question of some legal importance as to the true interpretation of Section 294 of Cr. P.C. As the Division Bench of this Court in Cri. A. No. 338/99 (Boraiah alias Shekar v. State) was not in agreement with and did not propose to accede to the proposition of law laid down earlier by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anjinappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2000 Kant 3501 and having been pursuaded to accept the view taken by the full bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shaikh Farid Hussinsab v. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 1983 Cri LJ 487 and being of the view that where the Post Mortem report is marked by consent and where its genuineness is not disputed, it is clearly admissible in evidence notwithstanding the fact that the author of the Postmortem report is not called into the Court to give evidence, and moreso or especially where the defence ha...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. K.T. Shivaiah Vs. G. Puttaswamy Gowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2199
Gururajan, J.1. This appeal is filed by one Dr. Shivaiah, party in person, challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.10.2002 in so far as rejection of declaration with regard to deemed continuance and with regard to denial of consequential benefits in terms of the judgment and decree.2. Facts in brief as under;Dr. Shivaiah, was appointed as Honorary Secretary on 24.1.1992 by the Karnataka State T.B. Association (for short 'the association') in terms of a resolution. His appointment was ratified in the meeting held on 30.4.1992. He was carrying on his duties as per stipulations contained in the Rules and Regulations. An order was passed ordering termination of the services of the appellant by the association. Appellant challenged the same by way of seeking a declaration and an injunction. Respondents entered appearance. They contested the suit. They have stated that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. Plaintiff's remedy if at all is only for damages. They wanted the suit to be ...
Tag this Judgment!North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Central Office and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ1378
Gururajan, J.MFA No. 1940 of 2001:1. This appeal is filed by the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation challenging the award dated 1.2.2001 passed in MVC 82 of 1996 by the Presiding Officer, Additional MACT Raichur. In the said case, a claim was preferred by one Kariyappa and Smt. Seethamma seeking compensation for the death of their child on 24.3.1996. Matter was contested. Trial Judge has granted 1,05,000.00 together with interest.MFA No. 2394 of 2001 2. This Appeal is filed Kariyappa and Seethamma challenging the very order dated 1.2.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer of Additional MACT Raichur in MVC No. 82 of 1996. In this appeal they are seeking enhancement of compensation.3. The Corporation in MFA No. 1940 of 2001 has challenged the finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the bus. They have also challenged the grant of compensation. In the connected appeal MFA No. 2934 of 2001 the claimants have challenged only the quantum.MFA No. 3399 of 2001:4. This Ap...
Tag this Judgment!B. Raghurama Prabhu Estate, Executrix Smt. M. Kaveri Bai and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)180CTR(Kar)87; [2003]264ITR124(KAR); [2003]264ITR124(Karn)
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The assessee as well as the Department, being aggrieved by the order dt. 31st July, 2000, passed by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, have preferred these appeals under Section 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). These appeals relate to the asst. yr. 1995-96, the previous year being the financial year ending on 31st March, 1995. 1a. The appeals before the Tribunal were heard by a Bench comprised of three members, namely, Vice President and two JMs. The Vice President by a separate order had dismissed the appeals of the appellants. The two judicial members while agreeing with the final conclusion drawn by the Vice President have written their separate order by the giving reasons of their own. 2. The impugned order of the Tribunal had been passed in eight appeals preferred by the eight assessees. These assessees are the erstwhile partners of a dissolved firm which was carrying on business of manufacturing Beedies under the firm name M/s Mangalore Ganesha B...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-2002
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Kar)401; [2004]265ITR658(KAR); [2004]265ITR658(Karn)
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. On an application made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred the following questions of law seeking opinion of this court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was nothing wrong in the asses-see valuing the closing stock at cost instead of at market price ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no transfer of capital assets of the firm to the partners even though the assesses-firm stood dissolved on December 18, 1987 ?'2. In order to answer the above questions of law, we need to narrate the relevant facts to the extent those are found necessary for the purpose. The present refe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »