Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR3511
P.P. Bopanna, J.1. At the stage of admission, the respondent was notified and the records of the lower Court were also obtained. The respondent has put in appearance through a Counsel, Learned Counsel on both the sides agreed to argue the appeal for final disposal. Accordingly, the appeal was treated as having bees posted for final hearing and heard for final disposal.2. This appeal raises an important question relating to the right of the Insurance Company to recover the damages payable by the common carrier, after having compensated the insured in terms of the policy of insurance in favour of the insured.3. The matter arises in this way :The appellant Company is the Insurer of the goods in question which were admittedly entrusted to the respondent-common carrier for transhipment from Secunderabad to Rae Bareli. The goods did not reach the consignee-Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (in short the 'I.T.I') in time and therefore enquiries were:made by the consignee to trace, the consignm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1991]70CompCas670(Kar)
P.P. Bopanna, J.1. At the stage of admission, the respondent was notified and the records of the lower court were also obtained. The respondent has put in appearance through counsel. Learned counsel for both sides agreed to argue the appeal for final disposal. Accordingly, the appeal was treated as having been posted for final hearing and heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal raises an important question relating to the right of the insurance company to recover the damages payable by the common carrier, after having compensated the insured in terms of the policy of insurance in favour of the insured. 3. The matter arises in this way: The appellant-company is the insurer of the goods in question which were admittedly entrusted to the respondent-common carrier for transshipment from Secunderabad to Rae Bareli. The goods did not reach the consignee-Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (in short 'the ITI') in time and, therefore, enquiries were made by the consignee to trace the consignment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2903; 1987(3)KarLJ470
Patil, J.1. In this appeal, the accused-appellants have sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the conviction passed on them.2. Accused-appellants Shafiulla Khan @ Jungal Shafi (A-1) and Saleem Afsar (A-2) were tried together by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, in S.C. No. 75 of 1984. While A-1 was charged with the commission of the offence of murder and simple hurt punishable under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. A-2 was charged with the commission of abetment of murder punishable under Sections 302 R/W 109 IPC. A-1 is found guilty of the offence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and R.I. for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 6 months, with a direction further that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. A-2 is found guilty of the offence under Sections 302 R/W 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10.000/-, and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1992]75CompCas266(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantraj Urs, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal directed against the judgment and decree in Original Suit NO. 468 of 1973 on the file of the then First Addl. Civil Judge, Banglore City. The judgment and decree is dated August 30, 1975.2. The following few facts are necessary to be stated for the purpose of a just disposal of the appeal.3. The plaintiff is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Its offices and branches are located in Mysore City. One such branch is located on what is know as the 100 Feet Road in Rajendranagar in Mysore City. It appears that on January 29, 1968, there was some kind of riot or civil commotion, as a result of which the branch shop where cloth and other textiles were sold by the plaintiff-co operative society were burgled by breaking open of the door of the shop by some miscreants. The watchman of the neighbouring premises i. e., Graduates Co-operative Society, who has gone to the premises of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR346; 1987(1)KarLJ7
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge, dated March 19th, 1984 in Writ Petition No. 21293/1982.2. Smt. Muthu Hengsu is an Agricultural labourer. She resides in a house in Sy. No. 127/11. She applied under Section 38 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for ownership of that house along with an adjoining land measuring 8 cents. She has stated that she has been residing here as an agricultural labourer for the last 27 years. The landlord, however, said that she has been residing there for the past 15 years. He further contended that the house is located at the middle of the garden and if ownership is granted to Muthu Hengsu, it would inconvenience him.3. There was a spot inspection by the Land Tribunal. It appears, at the spot inspection, the landlord agreed to give 5 cents of land in Sy. No. 236/1 instead of acceding to the claim of Muthu Hengsu in Sy. No 127/11. Accepting that offer, the Tribunal made the order as follows :It w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR854; (1987)IILLJ322Kant
ORDER1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the following relief : 'Quash by the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be, the order dated 11th September, 1981 of the Superintendent of Police, Bijapur (Annexure-F) discharging the petitioner from service, with a further direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith, with all consequential benefits;' 2. The contention of the petitioner is that, though the order of discharge is innocuously worded, it is really in the nature of penalty as it is actually passed on the basis of the alleged misconduct without holding an enquiry and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Police Constable in the Karnataka State Police Service in the unit of the Superintendent of Police, Bijapur, by the order dated 2nd July, 1980. Pursuant to that, he re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR2794
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common Judgment.2. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) constituted and functioning under the Road Transport Corporation Act of 1950 (Central Act No. 64 of 1950) by itself or in combination of some of its officers like the General Manager, Deputy General Manager (Administration) are the appellants in these appeals directed against the common order made on 30-6-1981 by Rama Jois, J. in Writ Petitions Nos. 16754 of 1980 and connected cases followed by other learned Judges in other Writ Petitions decided on 2-7-1981, 21-7-1981 and 10-8-1981 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the respondents herein except the State of Karnataka who were the petitioners. Any reference made hereafter to the KSRTC must, therefore, be treated as referring to the appellants who were the respondents in the Writ Petitions filed before this Court. The State of K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1990]68CompCas450(Kar)
P.A. Kulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by respondent No. 1 against the order dated March 25, 1981, passed by the IVth Additional City Civil Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City, in Arbitration Petition No. 12 of 1981, allowing I.A. I and thereby restraining the first respondent from realising the bank guarantees until the disposal of the main arbitration petition. 2. The parties are referred to with reference to their position in the trial court. 3. The petitioner, Korula Rubber Co. P. Ltd., a private limited company, having its registered office at Bombay, is carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling rubber goods and rubber-lining of steel pipes and fittings. Respondent No. 1, Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd., is a Government of India undertaking and is engaged in the business of iron ore mining at Kudremukh. Respondent No. 2, United Commercial Bank, is a nationalised bank. Engineers India Ltd. is the authorised inspection agent nominated by respondent No. 1 and Metchem in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1987Kant139; ILR1986KAR3313
ORDER1. This is a revision by the respondent No. I against the order dated 25th March, 1981, passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City, in Arbitration Petition No. 12/1981, allowing I.A.I. and thereby restraining the first respondent from realising the bank guarantees until the disposal of the main arbitration petition.2. The parties are referred to with reference to their p6sition in the trial Court.3. The petitioner Korula Rubber Company Private Ltd., a private limited company, having its registered office at Bombay, is carrying on business of manufacturing and selling rubber goods and rubber-lining of steel pipes and fittings. The respondent No. I Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd. is a Government of India undertaking and is engaged in the business of iron ore mining at Kudremukh. The respondent No. 2 United Commercial Bank is a Nationalised bank. The Engineers India Ltd. is the authorised inspection agent, nominated by the respondent No. I and Met...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1986)56CTR(Kar)41
R. S. Mahendra, J. - In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari quashing Exhibit-B, the order of the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-V, Bangalore (ITO), dt. 26-8-1978, issue of a writ of Prohibition restraining respondent-1 from taking any steps pursuant to Exhibit-B and also to declare the provision relating aggregation of agricultural income for rate purposes, as unconstitutional offending Art(s) 14 and 19 of the Constitution.2. The facts leading to this petition are these :The petitioner is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act). He has his year of accounting ending on 31st of March every year. For the asst. yr. 1976-77 the Finance Act, 1976 (Finance Act), was applicable to the petitioner and he filed his return declaring his income from his business property as also income from agriculture. He, however, sent a representation Exhibit-A on 14-8-19...
Tag this Judgment!