Karnataka Court June 1985 Judgments

State of Karnataka Vs. Nagappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1986Kant199; ILR1985KAR2374

Venkatachala, J.1. In this revision petition, which is before us, being referred for hearing and disposal by a Division Bench, we are concerned and have to deal with the scope and operation of sub-rule 1) of R. 3A of 0. 41 .of I he C.P.C. 1908 (for short 'the Act').2. The material facts, which have given rise to the filing of this revision petition, lie in a narrow compass., The State of Karnataka for short 'the State') presented in the Court of District Judge, Gulbarga for short 'the appellate Court') a time barred appeal. But, that appeal, when presented, was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. However, such an application came to be filed subsequently. The appellate Court, which registered the said time barred appeal as R.A. No. 55/83, numbered the said application as I.A.I in that appeal. Later, when the appellate Court took up the time barred appeal together with the application for condonation of delay for hearing, a preliminary objection, to wit, that tim...

Mahadevappa Irappa Jogur Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3521

ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. Heard. These petitioners are admittedly partners in a firm carrying on business in edible oil seeds, pulses, edible oil etc, in Bijapur city. In the proceeding initiated before him against these persons the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijapur, (C.C. 2637/81) had framed two charges against the accused. One was for alleged violation clause (3) r/w. 5 of the Karnataka Edible Oil Seeds (Licensing) Order, 1967 and another, for contravention of Clause(4) of the Pulses, Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oil (Storage) Order, 1977, both punishable u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (the Act). The accused challenged the Order framing charges against them before the Sessions Judge, Bijapur. The Learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision in part and quashed the first charge and directed the trial to go on re; the second charge.2. In this Petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C., it is that part of the order of the Sessions Judge, retaining the second charge that is cha...

Babu Tayappa Appugol Vs. Shanta

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR4013

ORDERKudoor, J.1.This Petition is one under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code') by the petitioners who were accused Nos. 1 to 8 in C.C. No. 672/1984 on the file ofthe Prl. J.M.F.C., Hukkeri, is directed against the order dated 3rd December, 1984, passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Criminal Revision Petition No, 86 of 1984 dismissing the Revision Petition and confirming the order dated 15th June, 1984, passed by the Pr1. J.M.F.C. Hukkeri, directing issue of process against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 494 R/W Section 34 I.P.C.2. I shall refer to the parties in the course of this order, for the sake of convenience, as they were arrayed in the Court of the first instance.3. The matter arises in this way :The complainant Shanta (respondent in this petition) filed a private complaint before the Prl. J.M.F.C., Hukkeri, alleging that she was the legally wedded wife of Babu Tayappa Appugol (A- 1) and during the subsistence of t...

Special L.A.O. Vs. Laxman Radavo Gawada

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR2734

Venkatachaliah, J.1.This appeal, by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dandeli, is directed against the Award and decree dated 8-9-1983, made in L.A.C. No. 59 of 1981, on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Sirsi, enhancing, in proceedings of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation in respect of two bits of land of the extent of 2 acres 1 guntas in Survey No. 29 and 20 guntas in Survey No. 34/4 of Keverle Village, Supa Taluk, acquired for thepurpose of Kalinadi Hydro Electric Project, pursuant to the preliminary notification published in the Gazette dated 12-6-1975.1. The enhancement is from Rs 3,000/- per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs. 12,000/- per acre in respect of 2 acres 1 gunta in Survey No. 29, and from Rs. 3000/- per acre to Rs. 15,600/- per acre in respect ofthe 20 guntas in Survey No. 34/4. The acquired lands were wet-lands capable of raising paddy-crop.2. In enhancing the compensation the Court-below adopt-ed the me...

SalauddIn Vs. Bommegowda

Court: Karnataka

Kulkarni, J.1.This is a defendant's appeal against the Order dated 15-3-1985 passed by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 267 of 1985 making the temporary injunction absolute.2. The parties have been referred to with reference to their position in the Trial Court.3. The property in question originally belonged to one Dhanalakshmi Ammal. She had leased out the building in question to one Mahadevan who was running the business of manufacturing vermicelli in the suit premises. The defendant purchased the running of vermicelli business from Mahadevan. Thereafter, a lease deed was entered into between the defendant and Dhanalakshmi Ammal as per the lease deed dated 19-11-1976.4. The present plaintiff purchased the property from Dhanalakshmi Ammal on 19-1-1984. After the plaintiff purchased the property, the trouble started between the parties. According to the defendant, as the plaintiff started interfering with his possession, he filed OS. No. 3813 of 1984 for perm...

Management of Samyukta Karnataka Represented by Court Receiver Vs. M.L ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1986(52)FLR104]; ILR1987KAR40; (1986)IILLJ72Kant

1. This petition is by the Management of Samyukta Karnataka, daily newspaper praying for quashing the award made by the Labour Court, Bangalore on a reference made under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Sub-s. (2) of S. 17 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955, ('the Act' for short). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :- Respondent-1 was a News Agent at Holenarasipura. He was entrusted with the selling of Samyukta Karnataka daily newspaper since 1971. According to the petitioner, respondent 1 was also selling several other newspapers. Respondent-1 was, in addition to being a news agent, appointed as a correspondent of Samyukta Karnataka daily on 12th August, 1971. Respondent-1 made a claim before the petitioner that he should be paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 315-25-440-804-50-1000 from 12th August, 1971 till 28th February 1979. The total amount of arrears of salary claimed on that basis was Rs. 42,2...

Palthur Honnur Saheb Vs. Bopanna Annapurnamma and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1986Kant109; ILR1985KAR3243; 1986(1)KarLJ393

ORDER1. Civil Revision Petition No. 2587 of 1982 by defendant 2 is directed against the common order dated 27-7-1982 passed by the Munsiff, Siruguppa, in O.S. No. 1 of 1981 allowing the amendment application I.A. No. 7.Civil Revision Petition No. 2637 of 1982 by defendant 2 is directed against the same said common order dated 27-7-1982 passed by the Munsiff, Siruguppa,. in O.S. No. 2 of 1981 Allowing the amendment application I.A. No. 7.2. Gudavarthi Sathanarayana Rao, defendant 1 in. O.S. No. 2 of 1981 (C.R.P. No. 2637 of 1982) had entered into an agreement to sell an agricultural land with Bopanna Nagabhushanam on 27-1-1968. The said Bopanna Nagabhushanam died before the suit on 5-4-1968 leaving behind him the present plaintiffs in both the suits as his legal representatives. The legal representatives gave a notice calling upon defendant 1 Gudavarthi Sathyanarayana Rao stating that the entire sale consideration had been given to him and that Bopanna Nagabhushanarn had been put in pos...

Noorulla Khan Vs. Regional Transport Officer

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR2711

ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases were posted before a Division Bench for disposal.2. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common or inter-connected, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. In order to appreciate the questions that arise for determination, we will first notice the facts of the cases.3-1. W.Ps. Nos. 8302 and 8303 of 1980: Noorulla khan of Kanakapura Town, the original petitioner, who is now arrayed as petitioner-1, to be hereafter referred to as the petitioner, was the registered owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration No. MYM 9091 classified as an'Omnibus' with a seating capacity of 15+1 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No. IV of 1939) (MV Act) and subjected to tax on that basis under Part-A Entry 7b of the Schedule to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act No. 35 of 1957) ('the Act'). The vehicle which was not covered by a permit under ...

Binny Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3128; (1986)ILLJ237Kant

1. In this petition, the Management of Binny Limited has prayed for quashing the award of the Labour Court, Bangalore, directing reinstatement of the second respondent into service with effect from 30th June, 1977, with continuity of service and full back-wages and other consequential benefits. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The 2nd respondent was a workman in the service of the petitioner. On 21st June, 1977, he was arrested by the Police on a charge under S. 120(b) read with Ss. 489(a) and (b) of the I.P.C. and as a result, he could not attend to his duties on and after 21st June, 1977. Thereafter, he was continuously in judicial custody. The 2nd respondent however, informed the petitioner through his counsel that as he had been in judicial custody, he was unable to attend to his duties. He was released on bail on 14th July, 1977. Immediately thereafter, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner informing him of the fact of his release on bail and ...

Fakirappa Bailappa Kambar Vs. Kristappa Bailappa Kambar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3062; 1985(2)KarLJ312

Patil, J.1. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in O.S. No. 90 of 1970, on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree for partition dated 30-6-1975, made by the Civil Judge.2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs-1 and 2 as in the Court below, are related among themselves as full brothers brought the above suit OS. 90/70 for partition of three agricultural lands, bearing S.Nos. 257/1 measuring 25 Gs., 257/2 - measuring 24 Gs and 258 -measuring 10 acres 14 Gs, and four houses, bearing VPC Nos. 11, 111, 112 and 147, situated at Salapur Village in Ramadurg taluk, Belgaum District, contending inter alia, that theproperties were the joint family properties and although they were living separately and messing separately for the sake of convenience, the family and the properties were still joint and there was no partition of the joint family proper-ties. According to them, the open site, on which a house bearing VPC N...