Karnataka Court May 1989 Judgments
Basavantappa Basappa Bannihalli and anr. Vs. Shankarappa Marigallappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ360; 1989(2)KarLJ95
ORDER1. This Revision Petition filed under S. 397 read with S. 401, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 7-2-1989, passed by the J.M.F.C., Buadgi, in C.C. No. 5/88, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 447 and 323, I.P.C., alleged against the petitioners in the private complaint lodged against them by the respondent-complainant on 2-4-1985, alleging that the petitioners at about 5 p.m. on 22-3-1985 committed house trespass by entering into the house of the respondent-complainant at Hedigonda village and assaulted the respondent and his father with their hands and voluntarily caused hurt to them and thereby committed offences under Ss. 447 and 323, I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C. took cognizance of the said offences order dt. 1-1-1988 and ordered issue of process against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused entered appearance in the trial Court and after taking some adjournments filed an application on 15-12-1988 requesting the Court not to proceed against t...
Tag this Judgment!Channabasappa Honakerappa Belaladavar Vs. S.H. Bhimakkanavar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1879; 1989(2)KarLJ44
Venkatachala, J.1. Questions of somewhat importance arise for our consideration and decision in this petition filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('the Act'). 2. Material facts giving rise to such questions are briefly these - The complainant in this petition is plaintiff in a suit pending before the Court of Munsiff at Haveri - a subordinate Court. The person arrayed as an accused in this petition is an Advocate who has filed vakalath for the defendants in that suit. The complainant filed an interlocutory application (I.A.) in that suit seeking from the subordinate Court an order of termination of the accused's vakalath which had been filed on behalf of the defendants therein. Two reasons given in support of such termination were - (i) Complainant's earlier consultation with the accused on matters involved in the suit; and (ii) Attestation by the accused of the signatures of deponents to affidavits filed in support of an other interlocutory application which had been filed in...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhara Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2199
ORDER1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ('the Code' for short). Gangadhara Shetty, the petitioner, has prayed to extend the benefit of the provisions contained in S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act ('the Act' for short) to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The petitioner has filed his affidavit in support of the prayer and has also produced the certified copy of the judgment and order, dt. 16-1-1989 made by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 271/1988. 2. The record is perused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor are heard. 4. The matter arises in this way : The petitioner was tried of the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thithahalli, in C.C. No. 369/1984 on his file. The prosecution adduced evidence in support of the accusation. The learned trial Magistrate on consi...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Esi Corporation Vs. S. Saravanam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: [1990(60)FLR165]; ILR1989KAR3559; 1990(1)KarLJ12; (1991)IILLJ494Kant
N. Venkatachala, J.1. Theses appeals M.F.As. Nos. 300 of 1988 and 301 of 1988, are of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation ('the Corporation') filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act'), against the common order dated September 21, 1987 made in E.S.I. Appeals Nos. 12 of 1986 and 6 of 1986 respectively by the Employees' State Insurance Court ('the ESI Court'). 2. Material facts are - The respondent was a Spinner in a Cotton Mill at Bangalore. He is an 'insured person' under the Act. He suffered an employment injury in his left foot on January 23, 1985. He obtained treatment for the injury in an E.S.I. Hospital and was away from work till that injury got healed up. He got temporary disablement benefit from the Corporation in that behalf, as provided for under the Act. Thereafter, on October 30, 1985, he made an application to the Corporation seeking from it permanent disablement benefit pleading that he was entitled to such benefit under the A...
Tag this Judgment!Onkarappa Vs. Sanna Neelappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR727; 1990(1)KarLJ54
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both parties.2. The point for consideration is whether the Rules set out in the Mysore Land Revenue Code called the Mysore Land Revenue Rules regulate the conditions of grant made on 11-2-1960 to the grantees.3. The following are the material facts of the case:The petitioners are the purchasers from the original grantees of lands situated in Sy.Nos.160 and Block Nos. 191, 183, 192 and 161 of Sy.No. 86. The lands are situated in Hireyemmiganur village of Holalkere Taluk, ChitradurgaDistrict. All the grants were made on 11-2-1960. But the Saguvali Chits were issued on different dates and the dates are 12-12-1972, 23-1-1973, 22-8-1972, 5-10-1960 and 5-10-1967 respectively. Whereas the grants were made in all the cases on 11-2-1960 under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules which came into force on 6-7-1955, the Saguvali Chits were issued in respect of the grant made on 11-2-1960 relating to the lands situated in Block Nos. 182...
Tag this Judgment!Purushotham Pandit Kher Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner (Spl. L.A.O.)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2042
Venkatachala, J.1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act') arises out of and is directed against the award and decree dated 31-10-1980 made in L.A.C.No. 110/1976 by the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad ('the Reference Court') in a reference brought before It under Section 18 of the Act.2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are briefly these:11 acres 30 perguntas of agricultural land comprised In R.S.No. 15 of Dharwad was shown In the Master Plan of Dharwad prepared in the year 1946 as the area earmarked for the establishment of a cattle market. In the year 1964, the Municipal Borough of Dharwad, as it then was, initiated proceedings for acquisition of that land for the establishment of a cattle market in Dharwad. But, the acquisition proceedings so initiated were quashed by this Court on 26-5-1972 in a Writ Petition filed by the owner or the land. However, within a few months thereafter, the owner of the said land, Sanjiv Venkatarao Malapur ('S.V...
Tag this Judgment!Sanna Beere Gowda Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR717; 1989(2)KarLJ245
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1.Smt. T.N. Manjuladevi, learned High Court Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2.2. Having purchased 1 acre 2 guntas of land in Sy.No. 128 of Hullekere village, Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, under two registered sale deeds from respondents-3 and 4 for valuable consideration on 14-6-1968 and 1-7-1968 respectively, the 1st petitioner became the owner in possession of the said land. The 2nd petitioner is the owner in possession of 24 guntas of land in Sy.No. 128 of the same village having purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 8-2-1968 for valuable consideration. The lands are stated to be Thalavar (Kuluvadike) Inam lands. The vendors of the petitioners-1 and 2 are admittedly' the holders of village office being Thalavars and they had applied to the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan, for regrant of the lands in their possession, in Sy.No. 128 of Hullekere village. The application was filed on 1D-2-1...
Tag this Judgment!Sunanda Kom Vittal Pai Vs. Mukund Srinivas Shanbhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2676; 1989(2)KarLJ364
Rama Jois, J.1. This appeal is presented by the appellant under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, read with Section 18 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, against the order of the District Judge, Karwar, dismissing the application presented by the appellant under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act.2. The facts of the case, in brief are these: The appellant had earlier filed Original Suit No. 46 of 1969 before the Court of Munsiff, Kumta, praying for a declaration that one had become the owner of certain immoveable properties and the respondent had no right or interest in the said property. The claim was based upon a will said to have been executed by Bhikki @ Bhagirathi the grand mother of the appellant. The suit was decreed and the Judgment and decree of the Munsiff was confirmed by Civil Judge, Karwar in R.A.No. 178 of 1972. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the respondent had preferred R.S.A. No. 224 of 1976 before this Court. That second appeal was allow...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Basalingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR3363; 1989(2)KarLJ189
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This second appeal by the defendant arises out of the suit O.S.No. 22/1973 filed by the respondent-plaintiff for damages of Rs. 1,200/-; for perpetual and mandatory injunction pertaining to land bearing S.No. 231 measuring 13 acres 14 guntas assessed at Rs. 37.12 situated at Malkhed village, Sedam Taluk, Gulbarga District.2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land. It is also not in dispute that the State In the purported exercise of its power of eminent domain, without acquiring the land in question, attempted to lay a road on the land in question in spite of the objection raised by the plaintiff.3. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, raised the following Issues:1. Does plaintiff prove that the breadth of the road constructed in the suit land is 75 as averred in the plaint?2. Does defendant prove that plaintiff is estopped from challenging the construction of the road as he did not object while constructing the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›