Karnataka Court February 1986 Judgments
Chief Secretary Vs. Sheriff
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1338
Venkatachala, J.1. In this appeal under Section 12 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), by the State of Karnataka (for short 'the State'), the sustain-ability of the award of the Mandya District Judge, who was appointed as an Arbitrator under the Act, determining the amount to be paid for a contract carriage acquired under the Act, has been questioned.2. A contract carriage bearing Registration No. MYQ 1227 belonging to the respondent (the operator), was acquired under the Act, by the State on 30-1-1976. As the amount payable by the State to the operator for the contract carriage so acquired, was not agreed upon between them, the State Government, by its order No. HD. 16. TMI. 84 dated 22-3-1984. appointed the District Judge, Mandya, as the arbitrator for determining the amount of compensation payable respecting the said contract carriage. Thereupon, the District Judge, Mandya, accepted his appointment as an arbitrator and initiated proceed...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Doddakempe Gowda Vs. Chikkeere Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2404
Nesargi, J.1. Patel Doddakempe gowda the plaintiff in O.S. No. 357 of 1974 on the file of the Munsiff, Ramanagaram, filed this second appeal. He is now represented by his legal respresentatives. He filed the suit against two defendants, Chikkeere gowda and Eregowda praying for possession of 16 guntas of land in Survey No. 158 of Gollahalli Village, Uyyamballi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk.2. The undisputed facts are that Survey No. 158 belonged to one Hayat Khan. Hayat Khan's sons are Rahim khan, Jabbarkhan and Peer khan. Jabbarkhan's wife is one Sabirabi. Somewhere about 20 years prior to the institution of the suit on 11-12-1974 Rahim khan, Jabbarkhan and Peer khan amicably partitioned the land into three bits. The partitioning of the land was done east to west.3. The case of the plaintiff is that when the land was partitioned as stated above, each brother got 1 acre 4 guntas in his actual possession and continued to enjoy the said area. After the death of Jabbarkhan, Sabirabi his wife, ex...
Tag this Judgment!Basvanthappa Basappa Hiraraddi Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Socieitie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR257
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. Sri Somayaji, the learned High Court Government Pleader, to take notice for respondent-1. A copy of the petition is also furnished to the learned Government Pleader. Since this petition can be disposed of on a short point without notice to respondents 2 to 4, it is heard for final disposal itself.2. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 12-9-1985 bearing No. CRD. 40 KMC 84-85, passed by the 1st respondent, registering the bye-laws of the Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in so far as the order relates to registering bye-law No. 14 of the Bye-laws. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is confined only to the validity of bye-law 14 of the Bye-laws of the Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd.. Bangalore, produced as Annexure-C.3. The contenti...
Tag this Judgment!Somasekhar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1202
ORDERDesai, J.1. The Short point that arises for determination in this proceeding is whether costs could be awarded by the Court in an Execution Proceeding for enforcement of the order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code).2. The brief facts necessary for the decision of the said point may be briefly stated as follows :-3. The Petitioner is the husband of the second respondent. Respondent-2 filed an application in Crl. Mis. No. 44/81 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwar against the petitioner for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code and she was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month as agreed to by the parties. The husband failed to pay the amount as per the said order. So the wife filed an application in Crl. Misc. No. 198/84 under Section 125(3) of the Code for enforcement of the said order of maintenance. According to her, the husband was due to pay a sum of Rs. 1200/- towards maintenance. She also...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anantharam Raamachandra Kalluray and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2178; 1986(2)KarLJ249
1. The scope of the power of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in the matter of award of interest under section 110CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), arises for our decision in this appeal. In a personal injury action, respondent No. 1 made a claim for compensation under the Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. III, Belgaum (for short 'the Tribunal'), against respondents No. 2, respondent No. 3 and the appellants, who were the driver, owner and the insurer respectively of a motor car bearing Registration No. MYB 9857 alleged to have caused an accident resulting in sustains of personal injuries by him. That claim has been allowed by the Tribunal by an award in the following terms. 'The petition is allowed in part with costs. The petitioner is entitled to and is awarded the awarded the compensation of Rs. 63,715 payable jointly and severally by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 together with simple interest thereon at the rate of six per cent per annum form the...
Tag this Judgment!H.K. Chindaiah Vs. M.K. Gopala Iyengar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1222
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order, dated 13-8-1984, passed by the Taluk Executive Magistrate, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, in Case No. MAG. SE. 102/1983-84, whereby he had directed the petitioner herein to cut off and remove the standing two coconut trees within seven days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which to suffer penalty as provided under S. 188 of the Penal Code. 2. The Taluka Executive Magistrate purports to make the order under revision, as provided under S. 133(1)(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention advanced by Mr. Papanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the order as made by the court below being wholly illegal and in violation of the provisions of law contained in S. 133 onwards of Chapter X of the Code, the same is liable to be set aside. This contention appears to be well founded. 3. Now, apart from the fact that it does not appear from the records that the Taluka Executive Magistrate had been specially e...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Ratna Enterprises
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1986
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR592]; ILR1986KAR1265; (1986)IILLJ137Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. This writ appeal by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is against the order dated 18th February, 1982, passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent and setting aside the orders made by the appellant under S. 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 2. The brief facts of the case are these : There are two cinema theatres in Mangalore called 'Rupavani and New Chitra Talkies'. They were brought within the purview of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder with effect from 1st August, 1963. In or about the year 1969, the propriety of the said establishments, viz., Smt. Ratna Bai, constituted a partnership with her children and continued to manage both the theatres. In the year 1973, the said partnership was dissolved and the assets and liabilities were divided equally among the partners. Consequently, there were two partnership firms called M/s. Ratna Enterprises, th...
Tag this Judgment!Channarajamanni Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Kant49
Rama Jois, J.1. This writ appeal is presented against the order of the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition presented by the appellant, in which she had prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest for the period commencing from 31st March, 1974 to 10th April, 1975 in terms of S. 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :-The property belonging to one Devaraja Urs, the husband of the appellant was acquired by the State for locating the National Tuberculosis Institute, Sankey Road, Bangalore. An award fixing the amount of compensation payable to the appellant's husband was made. The award has been accepted by the appellant. The grievance of the appellant was that interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum required to be given under S. 34 of the Act was not given by the Government. A representation was made by the appellant to the respondent in this behalf. The Assistant Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1219
ORDERDesai, J.1. The petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 31/84 on the file of the J.M F.C. Koppal. He was tried for an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC for committing the theft of the cycle (M.O. 1) belonging to Somasundaram (P.W. 3) when he bad kept it near his photo studio at Koppal on or about 1-11-1983 at about 9-15 a.m.2. As the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge, P. Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-5 were produced on behalf of the prosecution. The defence of the accused was one of total denial.3. Accepting the prosecution evidence, the Learned Magistrate convicted him under Section 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, taking into consideration the previous conviction as mentioned in Ex. P. 5. In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Raichur, confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for two years and ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Hanif Abdul Karimsab Lohar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1317
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Twin prayers are - (i) to declare first part of Rule 10 of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment Rules, 1977) as ultra vires and (ii) to quash endorsement, dated 20th/26th December 1984 (Annexure-D) informing petitioner that Government is not desirous of appointing him aas Munsiff considering report regarding his character and antecedents.2. Prayer itself pre- supposes that he has been selected by Selection Authority and his name is included in select list of candidates for recruitment as Munsiff, but, Government has declined to appoint him as Munsiff for reasons mentioned in the impugned endorsement.3. Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') reads thus:-'10. Conditions relating to suitability and certificates of character :- No person shall be appointed to any service or post unless the appointing authority is satisfied that he is of good character and is in all respects suitable fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »