Karnataka Court February 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Balumal P. Seth Vs. Giriyappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1256
ORDERB.P. Singh, J.1. These three Revision Petitions arise out of the order of the First Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, dated 3rd August, 1989 in H.R.C.No.392/1986. The learned Judge by his impugned order passed an order of eviction of the petitioners herein on a finding that they were the sub-tenants of the tenant against whom a ground for eviction under Section 21(1)(p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was made out by the landlords. Since the tenant was liable to be evicted, the petitioners, who were his sub-tenants, were also liable to be evicted from the premises in question. The question involved in the three Revision Petitions before me being identical, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this Common Order.2. A few facts which are not in dispute may be stated thus:-One Gangadharappa was the owner of a vacant site bearing old No. 206 (late No. 218) current No. 6, situated at Srinivasa Mandir Road, Balepet Cr...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vishnu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2406
Rama Jois, J.1. In this Appeal presented under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the following three questions of law arise for consideration:1. Whether the objection that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bangalore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim arising out of personal injury suffered by the first respondent in a motor accident which occurred at Nasik in the State of Maharashtra could be permitted to be raised in the appeal for the first time and whether the order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside on such objections?2. Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has no jurisdiction to award compensation higher than what is asked in a claim petition presented under Section 10 of the Act even though according to law the claimant is entitled to a higher rate of compensation?3. Whether the extent of permanent disability suffered as specified in the Schedule to the Act is a bar for pleading and pro...
Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gurappa Channabasappa Paramaj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant97; ILR1991KAR1109; 1991(1)KarLJ613
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this appeal preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hidkal Dam Project, Hidkal, under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the following important question of law arises for consideration :-- Whether a reference made by a Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Karnataka Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1961, after the right of the claimant to make an application before the Civil Judge praying for a direction to call for reference under Section 18 of the Act had become time barred is valid? 2. Brief facts of the case are these :-- The lands belonging to the respondent were acquired pursuant to a preliminary notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 22-7-1965. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 21-3-1968. The respondent also received the compensation amount awarded shortly after the award was passed. After 14 years thereafter, a reference under Section 18...
State of Karnataka and Another, Etc. Vs. N.A. Nagendrappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Kant317; ILR1991KAR1057; 1991(2)KarLJ172
ORDERVenkatachala, J. 1. Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shivaraj Patil, J., who, sitting in a Division Bench, heard the appeals on 3-8-1990, gave expression to their view of the important question involved in the appeals and the need for its decision by a Special Bench, by making the following order :--'In view of the important question involved whether the delimitation order under S. 5(5) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983, and the amendments thereon, could be questioned in a writ petition, the consequences of which will be far-reaching, the matter is directed to be heard by a Special Bench.'A Special Bench consisting of three of us (including Shivaraj Patil, J.) having been constituted pursuant to the said order, the appeals were heard by us and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Karnataka State Legislature, with the object of establishing and constituting Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat S...
Sri Gangadhara Rice Mills Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1285; 1991(1)KarLJ431
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. The appellant has called in question the power of the respondent-Market Committee, to levy market fee on the sale of rice manufactured from out of the paddy purchased by him within the market area or from other dealers who get the paddy hulled in the appellant's rice mill.2. The point urged before us is that under Section 65 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 ('the Act' for short), it is not permissible to levy such market fee on the same commodity twice, one at the stage of paddy and later at the stage of rice which amounts to multipoint levy and therefore it will be against Section 65 of the Act. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed on the Decision in the case of RAM CHANDRA KAILASH KUMAR & CO. v. STATE OF UP, : [1980]3SCR104 . It is also urged that though this Ruling came to be considered later by the Supreme Court in the case of SREENIVASA GENERAL TRADERS v. STATE OF A.P., : [1983]3SCR843 the question came up ...
Shivappa Laxman Savadi Vs. the State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2845; 1991(3)KarLJ728
1. The appellant herein stood his trial in the Court of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum in S.C. 65/89 and threat he was found guilty of having committed the murder of one Keshav, of having caused grievous hurt to one Shanthu and of having caused simple injury to one Annasab. The learned Sessions Judge while convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences imposed the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence of murder and also sentenced the appellant to terms of imprisonment ranging from 1 to 3 years for the kindred offences punishable under Ss. 326 and 324, I.P.C. He ordered the sentence to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Sessions Judge as aforesaid the appellant preferred this appeal. Herein we shall refer to the appellant as the accused for the sake of convenience. 3. On his behalf we have heard a very tenacious but persuading argument by Sri. Ravindra Patil who appears in support of this appeal. A valiant attempt w...
The State of Karnataka Vs. D.S. Krishnaiah Setty, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1641; ILR1991KAR1533; 1991(2)KarLJ50
B.P. Singh, J. 1. The State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal only on the question of sentence making a grievance that the learned Special Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore city, while finding the respondent guilty of contravening clause 3 of the Karnataka Pulses Dealers Licensing Order, 1977, which was punishable under S. 3 read with S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, has sentenced the respondent only to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The State contends that a substantive sentence ought to have been passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent on the other hand contends that his conviction itself is unjustified and, therefore, he contends that there is no justification for enhancement of the sentence and that the conviction itself should be set aside. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a licensee under the Karnataka Pulses Dealers Licensing Order, 1977. He carries o...
Revajeethu Builders and Developers Vs. S. Vasudeva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1417; 1991(1)KarLJ522
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These Appeals are directed against the Common Order dated 8-9-1989 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.Ps.Nos. 8546 to 8548 of 1988 connected with W.P.No.15377/1988, allowing the Writ Petitions partly and disallowing a certain prayer of the petitioners therein. In the result, the aggrieved 5th respondent in W.Ps.Nos. 8546 to 8548/1988, M/s. Revajeethu Builders and Developers (hereinafter referred to as Revajeethu for short) has preferred Writ Appeals Nos. 2071 to 2074/1989 arising out of the said Writ Petitions as well as W.P.No. 15377/1988. Writ Appeals Nos. 2059 to 2062 of 1989 are preferred by the 4th respondent in W.Ps.8546 to 8548/1988, viz., M/s Narayanaswamy and Sons. Writ Appeals Nos. 2083 to 2085/1989 are preferred by the Writ Petitioner in W.Ps.Nos. 8546 to 8548/1988 to the extent of one of his prayers or relief prayed for by him being refused. Similarly, Writ Appeal No. 1928/1989 is preferred by the petitioners in W.P.No. 15377/...
State of Karnataka Vs. Harischandra Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3084
M. Ramakrishna, J. 1. This Appeal by the State of Karnataka through the Executive Engineer, UKP Dam Division No. 2, Alamatti Dam, is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 20-10-1989 passed in Arbitration Case No. 2 of 1988 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Bijapur. 2. The matter arises this way: Respondent-1 is a Class-l contractor executing the civil work under the appellant and in the course of executing the work, he had entered into a local competitive bidding contract with the appellant on 12-11-1982 in No. 13 in respect of work of construction of Alamatti Power Dam at Almatti, Bijapur District. By virtue of Clause 53 of the said contract, the disputes between the parties arising out of the said contract are to be referred to the Arbitrator and the parties are to abide by the decision of the Arbitrator.Certain disputes having arisen between the parties, the same were referred to Sri A, Selvaraj, Chief Engineer, Government of Karnataka, as a sole Arbitrator. Thereafter,...
Rangappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3208
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 182/1 measuring 1 acre 14 guntas situate at Magadi village, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk, has sought for quashing the Notification bearing No. LAQ(2) SR. 17/84-85 dated 17-8-1984, published in the Official Gazette on 20th September 1984 issued under Sub-section (1) of Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Karnataka Act 17/1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the land in question, along with other lands, has been proposed for acquisition on applying the urgency clause for Outer Development of Magadi Town for providing house sites to the weaker section of the people. There is no justification for applying the urgency clause; that there are buildings on the land in question and therefore the land is not amenable for applying the urgency clause because the la...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »