Karnataka Court August 1989 Judgments
A.R. Somasekhar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR672; 1989(2)KarLJ402
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order made on the application filed under Rule 9 of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority Rules framed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Appellate Authority rejected the application virtually following the principles applicable to an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code. The scope of Rule 9 of the Rules has been explained by this Court in GANGAMMA v. KUNDALAPADY VENKAPPA, : ILR1988KAR1480 to the effect that the Appellate Authority should liberally construe the said Rules and enable the parties to adduce additional evidence unless the conduct of the parties disentitles them to such relief. I am of the view that in such matters the Appellate Authority should freely allow such applications considering the history of the legislation and the background in which power of appeal was conferred on the Appellate Authority, particularly when the Land Tribunals were conducting their proceedings without fol...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gurusangappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR89; 1990(1)KarLJ165
Rama Jois, J.1. In this appeal, in view of the contention urged by the learned Government Advocate, the following question of law arises for consideration:-'Whether the benefits extended by the provisions of Section 23(2) and Section 28 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 do not apply to the awards made by the Court in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, subsequent to the coming into force of the Amending Act with effect from 24-9-1984, in respect of acquisitions initiated by the issue of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act or the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer prior to 30th April 1982?2. The facts of the case are these. The lands which constitute the subject matter for award of compensation under the Act, were acquired pursuant to a preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act on 21-2-1974. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 27-1-1979. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation aw...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Murthy Setty Vs. Karnataka Housing Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR3479
K.A. Swami, J.1. In view of the fact that the appeal involved a very short question of law, on 1-8-1989 it was directed to be brought up in the category of orders, with a further direction that it would be heard for final disposal. Accordingly, the appeal is brought up today in the category of orders. The records of the appeal are also received. The first respondent has entered appearance. Therefore, in the light of the order dated 1-8-1989 the appeal is heard for final disposal.2. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was not maintainable as it was filed against the first defendant-first respondent without issuing statutory notice as required by Section 72 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The trial Court dismissed the suit on three counts - that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court, that the notice under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Kap Steel Ltd. Vs. R. Sasikala
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC106; 1990ACJ913; [1991(62)FLR638]; ILR1989KAR3098; 1989(3)KarLJ54
Rama Jois, J.1. In this appeal presented under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act ('the Act' for short), the following two questions of law arise for consideration :- (1) Whether the period of limitation prescribed for preferring the appeal under sub-section (2) of S. 30 of the Act should be counted from the date of the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or from the date of communication if in a given case after pronouncing the order a communication about the passing of the order was also given (2) Whether depositing of the amount of interest or penalty imposed under S. 4A of the Act in addition to the compensation awarded or otherwise, is a condition precedent for preferring an appeal 2. In order to appreciate the two questions, it is necessary to set out the provisions of S. 30 of the Act. '30(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely :- (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redem...
Tag this Judgment!Church of South India Trust Association Vs. Wrapaids Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1989
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas838(Kar); 1989(3)KarLJ449
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. This application is made in Company Petition No. 68 of 1987 seeking an order of this court directing the respondent-company whose winding up is sought in the company petition to hand over possession of the premises which belongs to the applicant as the landlord in that the premises shall be in the custody of the applicant till the company petition Is disposed of one way or the other. It Is submitted that the proceedings for eviction initiated also have been stayed In terms of section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. This court has already passed an order adjourning Company Petition No. 68 of 1987 sine die in terms of section 22 of the Act. The language employed in sub-section (I) of section 22 of the Act emphatically prevents this court from proceeding to order winding up of the company unless the winding up order has already been made which is caved under section 31 of the Act. The...
Tag this Judgment!Nagesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2234; ILR1989KAR3058; 1989(3)KarLJ93
ORDER1. In this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short), the Order dated 6-1-1988 made by the II Additional J.M.F.C., Sirsi, in C.C. No. 3336/86 on his file, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner on 30-9-1987 challenging the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to try the offences under Chap. X of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (the Act for short), is challenged. 2. The record and proceedings in C.C. No. 3336/86 and the record of this petition are perused and examined. 3. Sri Sashikumar for Sri T. S. Ramchandra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned representative of the respondent (State) are heard. 4. The facts, out of which the present petition arises, briefly stated, are these :- The petitioner is accused before the learned Magistrate. He is prosecuted for having committed an offence punishable under S. 87 and S. 50(k) of the Act read with S. 411 of the Penal Code on the allegations that he on 26-6-1985 at about ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bharathi and Others Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant173
ORDER1. All the above petitions are disposed of by the following common order as the questions of law raised and the facts are similar. For the purpose of convenience, the facts stated in W.P. Nos. 24193 to 24198 of 1981 are taken and followed.2. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have made a common grievance of certain events to which a brief reference will be made later in the course of the order, and have sought for the following reliefs :(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction to respondents 1 to 3 to register the amendment to bye-law as approved by the General Body of the fourth repsondent on 25-12-1973;(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction to respondents 1 to 3, to direct the fourth repsondent not to act contrary the amendments made to the bye-law approved by the General Body on 25-12-1973.(iii) to issue a writ of certiorari or similar order or direction to quash the cancellation deeds executed by the fo...
Tag this Judgment!Boregowda Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR489; 1989(2)KarLJ515
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. By consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties these cases are disposed of by a common order.2. In all these cases the Deputy Commissioner concerned has disposed of the appeals which were preferred before him against the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner concerned, on merits even though the appellants remained ex prate.3. The point for consideration is - whether the Appellate Authority is permitted under the law to dispose of appeals on merits when the appellants remained ex prate.4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that under Rule 5 Sub-rule (2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Rules 1985, if the appellant does not appear on the date fixed for hearing or any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Deputy Commissioner may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. According to the learned Counsel the power of the Appellate Aut...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappajaiah Vs. Muddanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR336
K.A. Swami, J. 1. Though this appeal has come up for orders, having regard to the short question involved in this appeal both sides have agreed that production of paper books may be dispensed with and the appeal may be taken up for final hearing. In the light of the submission made by learned Counsel on both sides this appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. The appellant is the plaintiff. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:'Has the lower Appellate Court failed to properly understand the relief claimed by the plaintiff while modifying the decree and awarding separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit properties, except items 4 and 5, jointly in favour of the plaintiff, his uterine brother - second defendant and their mother - fourth defendant?'3. In the light of the contentions urged on both sides, the following points arise for consideration:i) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in law in holding that Items Nos. 4 and 5 are n...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Narayan Sah Prabhat, Bangalore and Others Vs. Bangalore University ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant39; ILR1989KAR3253; 1989(2)KarLJ438
ORDER1. Invalidation of Communication No. Ex. MPEC : HNGG: 89 dated May 12, 1989, of the Bangalore University ('the University') issued to the Principal of the B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore ('the College'), by which the benefit of performance of 28 examinees in all their papers (Theory and Practical) of the IV Year B.F. Examination held by the University in February/ March, 1989 has been denied, is sought in these writ petitions.2. Material facts and circumstances leading up to the communication, invalidation of which is sought, are :28. Examinees named in the communication along with 10 other examinees were answering the Hydrology and Irrigation paper of three hours duration in Room No. 101 of the College from 2-00 p.m., on March 13, 1989, under a sealing arrangement, which was as follows : EntranceE83BA008E83RA081018401088E82BA001186089082962901830639235386893374310610340451081047652111105815711411091 (Absent)58111125The University's Examination Vigilance Flying Squad ('th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »