Karnataka Court July 1979 Judgments
A.R. Venkatachalaiyengar and ors. Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant1
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted to decide the following question:'Whether under the provisions or by virtue of the provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Misellaneous) Inams Abolition Ad, 1954, there is a legal or statutory duty on the part of the State Government to collect rents payable by the tenants to be continued under Section 9A of the Act between the date of vesting and the determination of claims under Section 9A of the Act?'2. The reference arises out of Appeal No. 62 of 1973 which was preferred from a decree of the Civil Judge, Shimoga,The appellants were the Inamdar's of lands measuring about 345 acres composed in the Inam villages of Kannur and Gowtampur situated in Anandapuram Habli, Sagar Taluk, Shimoga District. The said Inam was abolished and vested in the Government with effect from first February 1959 consequent on the issuance of a notification dated 13th January 1959 under Section 1 (4) of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams ...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Gurusangappa Baragundi Vs. the Land Tribunal, Badami and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant175; 1979(2)KarLJ370
D.M. Chandrashekhar, C.J. 1. These lour petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution have been referred to a Division Bench by Bhimiah, before 'whom they had, come up in the first instance. The reason for so referring them is that they are inter-connected with Writ, Appeal No. 591 of 1978. We have heard arguments of learned Counsel 'in the appeal and in these petitions and we are deciding them by this common judgment.2. Writ Appeal No. 591 of 1978 is from the order of Venkatesh, permitting Writ Petition No. 7584 of 1977 being withdrawn by the petitioner therein. This appeal is by Basapa Gurusangappa Bargundi, who was the power of attorney holder for Channappa Shanmukhappat Barundi the petitioner in Writ petition No,7584/1977.3. The case of the appellant is briefly thus: Channappa, Shanmukhappa Bargundi had made an application under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Land Tribunal, Badami taluk for being registered as occupant...
Tag this Judgment!R.N. Shivananje Gowda and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant178; 1979(2)KarLJ373
ORDER1. In these petitions under Art. 226(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Bangalore, in Case No. 167/241/245/LMS/RVN/76.2-5180, dated 28-10-1976 (Exhibit-N) rejecting the revision petitions filed by the petitioners under R. 61 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, and further confirming the grant of quarry lease made in favour of the Village Panchayat Committee, Chunkily respondent No. 4 herein. 2. Sri N, S. Srinivasan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that no grant of quarrying lease can be, made to the Village Panchayat Committee in view of the provisions contained in the Rules. It was also contended that the grant made in favour of the Village Panchayat Committee is vitiated because there was no prior approval obtained by the, competent authority before making the grant in favour of...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.R. Shetty Vs. Secretary to Government, Home Department and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1979
Reported in: ILR1979KAR2280; 1979(2)KarLJ429; (1980)ILLJ265Kant
ORDERBopanna, J.1. This is the third round of litigation between the management and employees of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'Corporation') touching the standing orders for taking disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Corporation. The first case decided by the Supreme Court is reported in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopinath Gundachar, [1968-II L.L.J. 144], and the second case is reported in General Manager, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Devaraj Urs, [1976-II L.L.J. 306]. Both these cases related to the standing orders touching the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation more, specifically the standing orders applicable to disciplinary proceedings against the employees for misconduct. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Part-III if the Regulations known as the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (in short,...
Tag this Judgment!B.T. Krishnappa Vs. Principal Munsiff, Kolar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant106
ORDER1. In this petition, under Articles 226(1)(a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 125/77 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Kolar has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions contained in 0. 18 R ' 18 Civil P. C. as amended by Act No. 104 of 1976, on the ground that the said provisions are opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution.2. An interesting argument was advanced by Shri G. N. Seshagiri Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that O. 18 R. 18 empowers the Court to make an inspection and record the fact observed by the Court at such an inspection and such a record shall form a part of the record of the suit and that being so, the party will not have an opportunity to challenge the same before the Court and thereby, the Court will be exercising an absolute power, hence it was submitted that it will be opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution.3. I have not been able to comprehend how the p...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and anr. Vs. D.P. Sharma and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Kant180; ILR1979KAR2071; 1979(2)KarLJ345
Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. This appeal is from the Order of Malimath.J, allowing Writ petition No.8980 of 1976. The regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the R. T.A) and the State of Karnataka have preferred this appeal. 2. The Karnataka State Road Trans-port Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) was permitted to blimp leaded as respondent-2 in this appeal and Shri P. R. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the Corporation, addressed supporting the arguments, of the learned High court Government Pleader who appeared for the appellants.3. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) is the owner of a public service vehicle. He had been granted a permit to operate a stage carriage between Bangalore and Vallipuram. As a part of that rout lies in Tamil Nadu, he could not operate that service beyond the border of this State as the Transport Authorities of Tamil Nadu had not countersigned that permit. On 4-10-1976, he made an application to the R.T.A. fo...
Tag this Judgment!Philips Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ171
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. The appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the conviction and sentence passed on him by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1978, convicting him for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case is that, the deceased Muthu and the accused were, sometime earlier to the incident which took place at about 9.30 P. M. on 7-12-1977, friends. P. W. 15 Fathima is the wife of Muthu. As Muthu could not carry on in his profession as bar-tender he took up vending illicit liquor. He enlisted the assistance of the accused on payment basis. The accused started cheating him in the business. Muthu warned the accused on many occasions. It is also the case of the prosecution that sometime earlier to the incident, Muthu had caused injuries on the hands of the accused and the accused nurtured grievance against Muthu. When the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Mutteppa Dhareppa Chigadolli and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1065
M.S. Nesargi, J.1. The appellants have challenged the convictions and sentences passed on them for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1978. Each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on the first count and imprisonment for life on the second count. He has ordered that the substantive sentences should run concurrently.2. The undisputed facts are that the deceased Shiddappa Menagenappa Goud-appanavar alias Gavisiddappa, is the father of P.W. 2 Krishnappa and brother of P. W. 3 Gangawwa. One Laxmappa is the brother of the deceased and one Kallawwa is one of the wives of the deceased. All these persons were residing in Kalarkoppa village, about 11 Kms. away from Gokak, situated by the side of Gokak Melavanki road.2-A. A-2 and A-3 are the sons of A-l, A-4 to A-6 are alleged to be the partymen of A-l.3.-4. The pro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›