Karnataka Court July 1990 Judgments

Mahalakshmi Kesava Rao Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR3693

ORDERRama Jois, J1. In this Writ Petition in which the petitioner has questioned the legality of the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the following question of taw arises for consideration:-'Whether a declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) that a land is needed for a public purpose made within a period of three years from the date of publication of Preliminary Notification under Section 4 of the Act becomes invalid if it is published in the Official Gazette after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of the Preliminary Notification?'2. The brief facts of the case are these:- A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19th May 1984 stating that the land specified therein was needed for a public purpose, to wit for the purpose of Income Tax Department of the Central Government. It was published in the Official Gazette on 7-6-1984. After the necessary enquiry under Section...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Siman Juje Borges and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1991ACJ286; 1991(1)KarLJ130

M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The only ground urged before us is that the Tribunal below erred in not limiting the liability of the insurer in accordance with the provision made in that behalf in the policy issued to the insured.2. From the reading of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is clear that no policy as such was produced before the Tribunal in regard to this plea. Nor does it appear to have taken a specific plea that such a term in the policy precluded the insurer from paying more than a particular sum in the event of the accident resulting in injury, damage to the property or death. In that circumstance, in the absence of the policy itself, the court was unable to determine the nature of the contract imposing limitation on the insurer in respect of his liability under the policy. As such award and decree have been passed without any reservation jointly and severally against the respondents.3. It was first contended by Mr. D.S. Sherry, learned counsel for the appellant, that th...

M.R. Venkatappa Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and ...

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

R.G. Desai, President: (1) After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Complainant and Respondents and perusing the records, the Commission delivered the following: (2) This complaint against the B.D.A. is for directing the BDA to pay some compensation with interest on account of the complainant's land being acquired by BDA. On going through the complaint, we find that the complainant is neither a purchaser of goods for consideration nor a hirer of services for consideration. Hence he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, the land of the complainant was acquired according to the complainant himself in 1965 and the award passed on 27.7.1965. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is also time barred. Hence the complaint is dismissed. No costs. (3) However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the BDA and get the amount due to him, if the BDA agrees to pay it. Complaint dismissed....

Shivashankar Tallur and Another Vs. the Mysore University and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant169; 1991(4)KarLJ383

ORDER1. Petitioners arc the students of Malnad Engineering College, Hassan at relevant time were studying third semester B.E. As usual, they appeared for the third semester examination which was held by the Mysore University during the month of September 1989. After examinations were over, at the time of valuation of concerned valuer found malpractices alleged to have been committed by the petitioners and other students of the University. The same was brought to the notice of the first respondent-University, which in turn, in exercise of power conferred under Section 62 of the Karnataka State University Act, 1976, issued show cause notices dated 15-11-1989 to the petitioners. The charge levelled against the first petitioner reads thus:'1) That you have committed malpractice of inserting drawing sheet by getting the printed matter xeroxed. 2) quality of the drawing sheet arc differed with other sheets and 3) size and style letter are differed with other sheets.'The charge levelled again...

State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Javeed Hyder

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant235; ILR1990KAR2434; 1990(2)KarLJ103

ORDERS. Mohax, C. J.1. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows : The respondent (Javeed Hyder) made an application on or about 23-12-1977 for grant of No Objection Certificate for locating a semi-permanent cinema in Kolar Town. The said application was made before the District Magistrate, Kolar District, Kolar. The substance of the said application was notified. Representations and objections were called for from all the concerned including the members of the public. Reports from the concerned officers were also sought. Apprehending that the District Magistrate, Kolar, would enforce R. 111G of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971, (for short 'the Rules'), framed under S. 19 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964, (forshort 'the Act'), the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 8086/78 challenging the Constitutional validity of the said Rule. The application, however, was rejected by application of R. 111G on 3-4-1980. The respondent contended that the said rule w...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Shridhara and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1991ACJ204; [1991(62)FLR641]; ILR1991KAR933

Urs. J.1. This is an insurer's appeal against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Shimoga. 2. The petitioners before the Commissioner was an employee of the Manner Flaps Manufacturers, Shimoga. While he was working on April 5, 1988 his hand was caught in the machine of his employer and his left hand fingers came to be crushed. He was immediately taken to the hospital at Shimoga known as Macgan Hospital and treated there. He claimed compensation before the first respondent the Commissioner, for injuries suffered in the course of his employment, in connection with the employment. He was getting a sum of Rs. 390/- per mensem as income or Rs. 13/- per day as wages. He had worked for more than 2 years with his employer. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 44,144/-. 3. The claim was resisted by the employer, inter alia, on the ground that the claimant was not being paid Rs. 390/- as wages; he was only working in Malbar Rubber Manufacturers on daily wages of Rs. 10/-. In th...

K.A. Venugopala Setty Vs. Dr. Suryakantha U. Kamath

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1992Kant1

ORDERSwami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment Decree dated 5-10-1979 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 9/1975. The appellant is the defendant in the suit and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant either himself or through his agent etc. from further printing and publishing the book titled 'A Concise History of Karnataka'.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the author of the book 'A Concise History of Karnataka' and the manuscript of the same was given to the defendant for printing; that he had not assigned his copyright to the defendant and therefore, the defendant was and is not entitled to publish the book without assignment of the copy right in writing to him by the plaintiff; that when the book was printed and ready for publishing, the defendant came forward with the plea that the plaintiff had assigned the copy-right th...

The Muslim Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Registrar of Co-op ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant243; ILR1990KAR3705; 1990(2)KarLJ311

ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this writ petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Muslim Co-operative Bank Limited, New Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore, the following question of law arises for consideration :1. Whether an order directing the holding of an inquiry into the affairs of a Co-operative Society instituted by the Registrar pursuant to a complaint made by one of the members of the Society is violative of Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (The Act for short)2. The brief facts of the case are these :The petitioner Bank is a co-operative society registered and functioning under the provisions of the Act. An inquiry into certain allegations regarding the working of the Society levelled in writing by one of its members has been ordered by the 2nd respondent Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.under Section 64 of the Act, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 64 of the Act which are relevant to this case read :'64. Inquiry by Registrar.--(1)...

Pujappa Vs. the State

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1991CriLJ1189; 1990(3)KarLJ213

Hiremath, J.1. The appellant herein has sent this jail appeal challenging his conviction under section 302 IPC for the murder of one Durgavva and another Veereshappa. He has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 IPC. Though there were charges under section 323 IPC for having caused injury to Lachmavva his mother and criminal intimidation under S. 506 IPC for having intimidated Huligeppa, he was acquitted of those two charges. 2. Briefly stated it was the prosecution case that there was some property dispute. When two deceased were sleeping in their house, the accused inflicted fatal blows with Vanike on them and when his mother attempted to intervene she was also assaulted. The accused did not engage any counsel in the Sessions Court, but a Standing Counsel was appointed during the trial. Though specifically the accused appellant did not plead in his defence under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was of unsound mind when the offence is alleged to b...

General Manager Vs. Chickabora

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(1991)ACC187; 1991ACJ395; ILR1990KAR2933

ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya, on June 13, 1990 in Case No. LOM/WCA/CR8/89-90 awarding certain amount of compensation to respondent-1. The appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The appellant has impleaded the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner') as respondent-2. The Officer has raised and objection that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya, is neither a necessary nor a proper party, therefore, he be deleted. 3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Commissioner, apart from deciding the matter as a quasi-judicial authority, he also discharge several other functions under the provisions of the Act which will have a bearing on the satisfaction of the award; that in the event he disobeys the directions issued by this Court, ...