Karnataka Court August 1977 Judgments
K. Ramalingam Vs. M.V. Ramanathan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant65; 1977(2)KarLJ436
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dated 26-5-1976 passed by the Principal, 1st Munsiff, Bangalore, allowing I. A. No. III filed under Order 26, Rule 9 r/w Section 151, C. P. C. by the defendant in O. S. No. 1782 of 1972 on his file. The prayer made in I. A. No. III and the impugned order read :--Prayer made in I. A. III :'The defendant above named prays that another Commissioner may be appointed to examine the handwriting and the signature of the defendant preferably a Seniormost handwriting expert and to give evidence in that behalf in the interest of justice.' Impugned order :'Objection to I. A. III not filed. I. A. III allowed. Superintendent of Forensic Laboratories is appointed as Commissioner as prayed.'2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition may briefly be stated : The petitioner is the plaintiff in that suit and the respondent is the defendant. The suit is for recovery of certain amounts said to be due from the respondent under two pro...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Setty Vs. Land Tribunal, Somwarpet Taluk and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant7; ILR1977KAR1236; 1977(2)KarLJ281
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of Venkataramiah, J., D/- 8-12-1975 made in Writ Petn. No. 5741 of 1975 rejecting the appellant's writ petition at the preliminary hearing stage. 2. The appellant is the landlord owning 3 acres of agricultural land in Koodlur village, Somwarpet Taluk, in Survey Nos. 19/1 and 19/2. The second respondent alleging that he is the tenant of the said land filed an application under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for grant of occupancy right. The said application was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the second-respondent is not a tenant of the said land and the appellant is personally cultivating the land. The par ties beside examining themselves, have examined some witnesses on either side. The Tribunal granted the application of the second-respondentconfirming occupancy rights in respect of 3 acres of land in Survey Nos. 19/1 and 19/2 of Koodlur Village. The order of the Tribunalreads thus: 'Order...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Basappa Vs. B. Anand Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ294
D.B. Lal, J.1. These 11 Criminal Appeals are brought from the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Second Court, Bangalore City, acquitting one Ananda Rao who was the accused in all these cases for an offence committed Under Section 14 (2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act 195).2. The cases before the learned Magistrate started on private complaints filed by the Provident Fund Inspector, Gr. I, Bangalore Division IV and since the trial was in the summons cases, Under Section 251 Cr.PC, the particulars of the offence of which Ananda Rao was accused, was read over to him in order to record his plea, While stating the case for the plea of the accused, it was specifically pointed out that the accused had failed to submit monthly returns in Forms Nos. 5, 10 and 12 due in respect of his establishment for the respective months as required under Paras 28 and 38(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Funds Scheme and as such he was guilty of the of...
Tag this Judgment!H.B. Shingappa Gowda Vs. Land Reforms Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant218; ILR1977KAR1250; 1977(2)KarLJ312
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-3-1977 made in Writ Petition No. 8722 of 1976 by Malimath, J. by which the learned single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the order dated 30-5-1975 passed by the first respondent Land Tribunal in Case No, LRM/6/75-76.2. In order to appreciate the contentions urged in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. Briefly stated they are:The appellant is the owner of an agricultural land measuring 3 acres 38 guntas in Sy. No. 104 of Markal village of Sringari taluk, Chickmagalur District. The second respondent-Sheshachari made an application before the Land Tribunal under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), for grant of occupancy right to him alleging that he is a tenant personally cultivating the said land. On the said application, notice was issued to the appellant-land-holder. The case was posted for hearing on 29-4-1975. On the said date, both partie...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Ponnamma and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ1241
C. Honniah, J.1. These two appeals arise from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Coorg, Mercara, dated 10th of March 1977, by which he convicted A-1 to A-4 under Section 366 of the I.P.C. A-1 and A-4 have filed these two appeals; A-2 and A-3 have not filed any appeal and they are undergoing the sentence.2. The facts are these:On 16-12-1974 Ponnamma (P. W. 1) aged about 20 years a resident of Boikeri village near Mercara, met A-1 (Ponnamma) at the bus stand in Mercara. While they were talking A-1 came to know that P. W. 1 was in search of a job. A-1 mentioned to P. W. 1 that she would get her a job in a factory in Bangalore. P. W. 1 requested A-1 to meet her near the bus stand the next day. So saying she went away. On the next day P. W. 1 came to the bus stand along with her father and met A-1. The father of P. W. 1 on being satisfied that A-1 was taking his daughter to secure her a job, he permitted P. W. 1 to go along with A-1. A-1 and P. W. 1 went to Virajpet and there they met M. S...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Vs. Veerabasappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1856
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Additional Munisiff and J. M. F. C. Haveri in C. C. No. 208/76, passed Under Section 358 of the Cr. P. C. holding that the complainant caused the arrest of the accused though there were no sufficient grounds for causing such arrest, and hence awarding the compensation.2. The case emerged out of a police complaint filed by Mallappa against several accused including the respondents 1 to 6, The complainant's case related to a parcel of land stated to be in possession of Mallappa and over such land the respondents 1 to 6 along with several other accused were stated to have trespassed-As such, the accused were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable Under Section 447 read with Section 109, I. P. C. It is manifest that the offence Under Section 447 was a cognizable one, and since the information regarding the accused was given by Mallappa in his complaint, investigation was conducted Under Section 157, Cr. P. C. leading...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Sathyanarayana Rao and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant221; ILR1977KAR1246; 1977(2)KarLJ192
ORDER1. This writ petition preferred by three land-holders is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Kadur, dated 24-7-1975 conferring occupancy right in respect of four lands on respondent No. 3 under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.2. Two main grounds urged in support of the writ petition are: First, the decision of the Tribunal is vitiated because the Tribunal relied on its own spot inspection and enquiries of the adjacent land-owners on 24-7-1975 at 2 P. M. which were made behind the back of the petitioners. Secondly, one of the Members of the Tribunal, Shri K. R. Honnappa is a cousin of the third respondent and that the participation of the said Honnappa, who is biassed in favour of the third respondent, has vitiated the proceedings.3. No counter-affidavit has been filed either by the Tribunal or by the third respondent, denying the relationship between Sri K. R. Honnappa, Member of the Tribunal, and the third respondent. There is also no denial of the al...
Tag this Judgment!Gokula Education Foundation (Regd.) and ors. Vs. the State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant213; ILR1977KAR1217
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of the two orders of the State Government marked as Exhibits 'C' and 'D' to the writ petitions. Exhibit 'C' is dated June 10, 1977, bearing No. ED 210 TGL 6 (1) regulating the admission and capitation fee in Engineering Colleges, Exhibit 'D' is dated June 13, 1977, bearing No. ED 210 TGL 76 (11), the annexure to which contains rules regulating the selection of candidates for admission to Government aided and unaided Engineering Colleges (Full-time/Part-time) and Technological Institute, Bangalore, for the academic year 1977-78. Both the orders are passed by the State Government in exercise of its executive power under Art. 162 of the Constitution.2. These petitions were posted for preliminary hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, who, after issuing rule nisi, referred them to a Division Bench for final disposal. Before the Division Bench, an objection was raised on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›