Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 1990 Page 1 of about 66 results (0.012 seconds)

Apr 20 1990 (HC)

Miss. Annie Abraham and Others Etc. Vs. the Sarvajna Education Society ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-20-1990

Reported in : AIR1991Kant148; ILR1990KAR1553; 1990(2)KarLJ38

..... regard to the larger interests of society, societal values and more than all the quality of education, especially at a time when the judiciary is supposed to be the anointed mediator of public values within the political system and when the public social services arc mandated by public values. during the present period of institutional decadence, the really critical role of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1990 (HC)

M.N. Venkateshaiah Vs. G.N. Krishnappa

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-13-1990

Reported in : ILR1992KAR313

k.a. swami, j. 1. r.f.a. 197/1982 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19-4-1982 passed by the learned xi additional city civil judge, bangalore in o.s. no. 436/1976 (old) o.s. no. 1176/1980 (new). r.f.a. 198/1982 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19-4-1982 passed by the very same judge in o.s. no. 1266/1976 (old) o.s. no. 2673/1980 (new). 2. o.s. no. 1266/1980 (old) o.s. no. 2673/1980 (new) was first filed in the court of the munsiff, bangalore city whereas o.s. no. 436/1976 (old) o.s. no. 1176 of 1980 (new) was filed in the court of the civil judge, bangalore city. both the suits will be hereinafter referred to with the new numbers. 3. the suit o.s. no. 1176/1980 was filed by the appellant in r.f.a. 197/1982 for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties against the respondents who were the defendants in the said suit whereas o.s. no. 2673/1980 was filed by the defendants in o.s. no. 1176/1980 against the plaintiff therein for a declaration of title and possession of a portion of item no. 3 of the property described in the schedule to o.s. no. 1176/1980. as o.s. no. 2673/1980 related to one of the items of suit properties concerned in o.s. no. 1176/1980 and it depended upon the decision in o.s. no. 1176/1980, it came to be transferred to the civil judge's court and clubbed with o.s. no. 1176/1980. when both the suits were pending the bangalore city civil courts act came into force. as a result thereof both the suits .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 1990 (HC)

Ravu Babaji Berad Vs. Maruthi Krishna Naik

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-05-1990

Reported in : ILR1992KAR877; 1991(4)KarLJ225

k.a. swami, j. 1. this second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9.12.1976 passed in r.a.no. 279/1972 by the principal civil judge, chikodi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.9.1968 passed by the munsiff, chikodi, in o.s.no.59/1965.2. the appellants are the defendants. the respondents are the plaintiffs.3. the respondents filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that they have become the owners of the schedule a and b properties and have also come to possess leasehold right in c schedule properties and further they have come to possess the same right which the deceased testator dadu babaji berad alias naik (hereinafter referred to as 'dadu') enjoyed in d schedule properties.4. all the properties are the agricultural lands. it is not in dispute in this case that agricultural lands comprised in schedule a and b were owned by the testator dadu. it is also not in dispute that dadu was in possession of lands described in schedule c as protected tenant under the provisions of bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the b.t. and a. l. act). as far as the properties described in schedule d are concerned it is the case of the plaintiffs that dadu was in possession of those properties as a protected tenant; but, subsequently he entered into an agreement of sale with the landlords and as such he was in possession of those lands as intending purchaser; therefore the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1990 (HC)

Malaprabha Co-operative Society Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-03-1990

ordermurlidher rao, j. 1. sy. no. 3 situated in the village limits of madhavapur known as kandak was a vacant land. certain people were displaced in malaprabha water scheme. it is to rehabilitate the displaced persons it was decided that the above vacant land should be made available to them to be used as building sites. accordingly, the special deputy commissioner, belgaum, issued an order, after securing the approval of the government, vesting 4 acres in madhavapur village in belbgaum municipal council, under section 81(2)(c) of the karnataka municipalities act, 1964. that order is produced as annexure r-1. it was clearly mentioned in the said order that the land in question is vested in the said municipal council for formation and distribution of sites of the site less and houseless weavers of madhavapur vadagaon village. though several conditions are imposed in the order, two conditions which need mention for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-'4. the city municipal council shall identify the houseless and site less persons and grant the sites to them after verifying their eligibility. 5. the land transferred shall not belong by right of ownership to the city municipal council, belgaum, but shall vest in it.'2. condition no. 7 thereof states that any contravention of the conditions in the order, the land shall vest in the state government and it shall be open for the government to resume lawful possession thereof.3. after the land was so vested .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1990 (HC)

Sanjiva @ Sanjiva Bhandary Vs. Vasantha and Others

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-09-1990

Reported in : AIR1991Kant86; ILR1990KAR1401; 1990(3)KarLJ311

1. this is the 15th defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 29th june, 1988 of the learned civil judge at mangalore, dakshina kannada district, in o.s. no. 13/1976 on his file.2. the facts to this appeal may be stated briefly and they are as follows. the plaintiffs vasantha, jayanatha and sumantha filed the said o.s. no. 13/1976 in the court of the civil judge at mangalore for partition of schedule-b and c properties said to belong to the undivided family of which their deceased grand-mother parameshwari hengsu was a member. they arrayed as many as 50 defendants of whom sanjiva, the 15th defendant, appellant herein, krishnappa and shyama are also the grand children of the said parameshwari hengsu but by the daughter while the plaintiffs are the children of a predeceased son of the said parameshwari hengsu by name narayan bhandary. it has been stated that the suit schedule-b properties are mulgeni properties which fell to the share of the aforementioned parameshwari hengsu by virtue of a family karar dated 29-12-1949 under the terms of which her branch of the undivided aliyasanthana family consisting of said parameshwari hengsu, gangamma, yamuna as well as thunga (since deceased) whose branch of the family was represented by dedefendants 4, 5, 25 to 37, 43 and 44. it has been further alleged by the plaintiffs that the suit schedule-c properties were the self-acquired properties of parameshwari hengsu and as parameshwari hengsu's grand children they are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 1990 (HC)

Mysore Construction Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-06-1990

Reported in : [1992]196ITR105(KAR); [1992]196ITR105(Karn)

k. shivashankar bhat, j.1. the following question of law is referred under section 256(1) of the income-tax act : whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in law in upholding the disallowance of the claim for investment allowance of rs. 83,849 made by the income-tax officer under section 32a of the act ?' 2. the question has already been answered by this court in i. t. r. c. nos. 217 and 218 of 1985 (shankaranarayana construction co. v. cit : [1991]189itr463(kar) ), disposed of on november 8, 1990. following the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the negative and against the revenue.

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 1990 (HC)

P.M. Subbaiah Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-28-1990

Reported in : [1991]190ITR440(KAR); [1991]190ITR440(Karn)

m.p. chandrakantharaj urs, j.1. this is a revision petition under section 55 of the karnataka agricultural income-tax act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), preferred by the assessee. the assessee is a coffee planter. he filed the return for the assessment year 1976-77 (accounting period april 1, 1975 to march 31, 1976) disclosing his status as an association of persons. the association in question consisted of the assessee, p.m. subbaiah, his two brothers and two sisters, all having attained the age of majority, undisputedly, prior to that assessment year, the family was being assessed as a hindu undivided family. after the death of the karta of the hindu undivided family which was some years before the assessment year 1976-77, an advocate from madikeri represented the assessee before the agricultural income-tax officer, virajpet. the members of the family had entered into an agreement dated april 2, 1975, by which they had severed their status as members of the hindu undivided family and declared themselves as equal shares in the joint properties of the family. he, therefore, contended that the assessment should be concluded against the association of person under section 3(3) of the act as tenants-in-common. the assessing authority did not accede though he examined the claim put forward in regard to the disruption of the status of the joint hindu family and examined the agreement which had been signed by all the members of the family and which was placed before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 1990 (HC)

Syndicate Bank, Ulsoor Branch, Bangalore Vs. M/S. Sudhir Surgicals and ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-28-1990

Reported in : AIR1992Kant146

orderk. a. swami, j.1. this appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dt. 26-2-1982 passed by the learned i addl: city. civil judge, civil station, bangalore in o.s. no. 2023/1980 (old no. o.s. 204/77). the appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents 1 to 4 are defendants nos. 1 to 4 before the trial court. in this judgment, the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and the respondents as defendants.2. the appellant filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of the following sums:i) rs. 81,897/- with interest at 16% per annum;ii)rs. 69,714-13 with interest at 16% per annum; andiii) rs. 18,579-55 with interest at 18 1/2% per annum from the date of suit till decree andfuture interest at contract rate from the date of decree till realisation with full court costs.the plaintiff also prayed for the sale of hypothecated goods described in schedules a and b for the realisation of the decretal dues and in the event, the sale proceeds of the hypothecated goods are found insufficient to satisfy the decretal dues, the plaintiff sought for personal decree against the defendants jointly and severally.3. the case of the plaintiff was that defendant 1 was a partnership firm; defendants 2 and 3 were the partners and defendant 4 was the purchaser of the 1st defendant-partnership of all its assets including the goodwill. the further case of the plaintiff was that the defendants 2.and 3, as partners of the first defendant firm availed 3 facilities from the plaintiff-bank:(1) a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1990 (HC)

A.V. Kowdi and Co. Vs. R.V. Lakshmidevamma

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-27-1990

Reported in : ILR1990KAR4355

murlidher rao, j.1. conflicting decisions on the interpretation of section 20, contempt of courts act and its effect on article 215 of the constitution of india, have given rise to the following question:-whether the period of one year prescribed in section 20, contempt of courts act is applicable to contempt proceedings under article 215 of the constitution, in respect of contempt of high court?2. in high court of karnataka v. y.k. subbanna : ilr1989kar3572 (contempt of court case - criminal - 8/84) a bench consisting of drvj and kbnj framed the following questions for consideration:-'(1) whether the period of limitation prescribed by section 20 of the act is attracted to case of contempt of the high court which is a court of record initiated under article 215 of the constitution?(2) what are the material dates for purposes for section 20 of the act?' 3. it was held that the period of limitation prescribed in section 20 of the contempt of courts act applies to proceedings initiated by the high court for contempt of itself. consequently it was held that the limitation of one year would commence from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. this was reiteration of the view expressed in venkataramanappa v. d.k. naikar : air1978kant57 . 4. in kanakaraj mehta v. shivakumar -ccc(civil) no. 35 of 1989 : ilr1990kar42 , bench consisting of mr. m. rama jois, j and mr. m. ramakrishna, j, held that the period of one year in section 20 applies to proceedings for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 16 1990 (HC)

Union of India Vs. Rollatainers Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-16-1990

Reported in : 1991(32)ECC321; 1991LC36(Karnataka); 1991(55)ELT317(Kar); ILR1991KAR555; 1991(1)KarLJ224

1. the union of india, assistant collector of central excise, and the superintendent of central excise, bangalore, have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of a learned single judge of this court (puttaswamy, j), dated 11th of june, 1984 whereby the learned single judge quashed the order dated 15-9-1980 calling upon the respondent herein to file a classification list in respect of printed cartons manufactured by it under tariff item no. 68 for approval, and the two show cause notices, dated 24-9-1980, annexures g and h relating to two period calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why it should not be required to pay a sum of rs. 1,70,638.30 and rs. 4,13,074.01 being the excise duty recoverable from the respondent under rule 10 read with rule 173j of the central excise rules, 1944. the learned single judge has also issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants to refund the excise duty collected from the respondent on the printed cartons for the period during which the exemption was in force on such manufactured article. 2. the question involved in the instant writ appeal is whether the printed cartons manufactured by the respondent-company are products of printing industry and as such exempted from the payment of excise duty under notification no. 55/75, dated 1-3-1995 as amended from time to time. there is no dispute that if the product of the respondent - company is found to be a product of the printing industry, it is entitled .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //