Karnataka Court September 1992 Judgments
Meenakshamma Vs. M.C. Nanjundappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant12; I(1993)DMC97; 1992(4)KarLJ146
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J1. Appeal is by the 2nd defendant in the suit. Respondents 1 to 4 herein were the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit. Parties are referred hereinafter with reference to their respective ranking in the trial Court. 2. Undisputed facts are : M. C. Chikkananjundappa was the father of the 1st plaintiff; and defendants 1, 2 and 3 is referred hereinafter as MCC. MCC had a wife Pillamma, who died in the year 1930; 1st defendant was the daughter of MCC through this wife. Another wife of MCC was Doddabasamma, who died on 26-1-1983; through her MCC had two sons (Plaintiff No. 1 and the 3rd defendant and a daughter, the 2nd defendant). The 1st defendant, though married, lived in her parental house, leaving her husband. Fate of the 2nd defendant has been the same; within a few days of the marriage of 2nd defendant, her husband left her and thereafter she has been living with her parents. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of 1st plaintiff. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Sri B.S. Nar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ255; ILR1992KAR3380
Hiremath, J.1. In this appeal the appellant has challenged the acquittal of the respondent of the offence punishable under S. 85(e) of the Employees' State Insurance Act ('Act' for short). The complainant through its Insurance Inspector alleged in the complaint that the accused-respondent as a Managing Director of the Factory and the Principal Employer of the said Factory was required to submit to the complainant a return of contribution cards in Form No. 6 as required under S. 44(1) of the E.S.I. Act R/W Regulation 86 of the E.S.I. (General) Regulations, 1950. The time limit for submission of the contribution cards is 42 days under the Regulation and as the same were not submitted he is liable to be punished. It was also stated that he was earlier prosecuted under S. 85(e) of the Act for the similar offence and sentenced to fine. The trial Court on considering the evidence of P.Ws.-1 & 2 tendered during trial found the accused not guilty on the ground that Hanumantharao was appointed ...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. V.G. Kulkarni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3501; 1992(4)KarLJ415
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. In this Appeal the appellant is questioning the compensation awarded to the land acquired for the purposes of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. The land is situated in Block No. 105, Kelageri village near Dharwad, in all measuring 20 acres 4 guntas out of which 29 guntas is potkarab.2. The land was notified for the acquisition as per the Notification dated 6.1.1982 published in the Karnataka Gazette on 21.1.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre. At the instance of the claimant the Reference Court has now awarded the compensation which comes to Rs. 3,90,000/- per acre (Rs. 8.97 per square feet.) While the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the compensation by treating the land as agricultural, the Reference Court has treated the land as urban land having immediate potentiality to be used as building sites. In the application filed for the reference the claimant stated that the market value of the...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshamma Vs. Nanjundappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3523
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. Appeal is by the 2nd defendant in the suit. Respondents 1 to 4 herein were the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit. Parties are referred hereinafter with reference to their respective ranking in the trial Court.2. Undisputed facts are:M.C. Chikkananjundappa was the father of the 1st plaintiff; and defendants 1, 2 and 3: he is referred hereinafter as MCC. MCC had a wife Pillamma, who died in the year 1930; 1st defendant was the daughter of MCC through this wife. Another wife of MCC was Doddabasamma, who died on 26.1.1983; through her MCC had two sons (Plaintiff No. 1 and the 3rd defendant and a daughter, the 2nd defendant). The 1st defendant, though married, lived in her parental house, leaving her husband. Fate of the 2nd defendant has been the same; within a few days of the marriage of 2nd defendant, her husband left her and thereafter she has been living with her parents. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of 1st plaintiff. Defe...
Tag this Judgment!Bommegowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3148
ORDERShyamasundar, J. 1. These and other connected Writ Petitions running into two or three thousand in number are directed against four common entities who are arrayed as respondents in these Writ Petitions, their commonness extending even to their itemised positions in the Petitions in that the State is arrayed as the first respondent in all these petitions, the Deputy Commissioners as respondent No. 2, the Administrators as respondent No. 3 and the Mandal Panchayats as respondent No. 4. The common characteristic as aforesaid does not stop just there but spreads even to the factual aspects and the legal issues raised in every one of these Writ Petitions challenging the appointment of Administrators to all the Mandal Panchayats existing in the State of Karnataka numbering in all about 2534 according to information furnished at the hearing of the Writ Petitions.2. The petitioners in all these cases are the Pradhans of the Mandal Panchayats. The office of a Pradhan is an electoral one. ...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Nagappa Krishnappa Dandina
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3652; 1992(4)KarLJ571
R. Ramakrishna, J. 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Dharward, shortly referred as 'KIADB' preferred the above Appeals against the enhancement of compensation of market value made by the Reference C.out.2. The lands are acquired for the Improvement of KIADB under a Preliminary Notification dated 30.10.1981 under Section 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1966 which is anologous to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, shortly 'Act'. The particulars of the lands acquired are as follows:SI.No.M.F.A.L.A.C.Block Nos.Area A. G.1.676/19899/871938-062.677/-10/-121/89-353.678/-7/-118/24-194.679/-8/-118/14-195.680/-11/-1287-006.6817-6/-118/35-183. There is no dispute that all these lands abut each other and are situated within the Municipal Corporation area of Dharwad of a Village Keiageri. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per acre vide his awards dated 22.08.1985, On Ref...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Vinayaka Bhat Vs. State, by Asstt. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ1020; 1992(4)KarLJ478
ORDER1. All these Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 24-2-1990 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Sorab, in C.C. Nos. 993/89 to 996/89, 998/89 to 1000/89, 1078/89 to 1084/89 and 887/89, respectively. Since all these petitions involve a common question of law. I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in them.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in all these petitions.3. The petitioner was prosecuted for not paying the annual tax of the vehicle for different periods starting from 1-1-74 up to 31-12-1988. After the charges were framed against the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty, the prosecution examined R.W. 1 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1957 (which will hereinafter be referre...
Tag this Judgment!Gangoji Rao Salanke Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR782
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who was the accused in the trial Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7.2.1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1989 partly allowing it and modifying the order dated 17.3.1989 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Mandya, in C.C.No.2007 of 1983.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.3. The petitioner was convicted in this case under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections, 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C, and R.I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the order of the Principal Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Mandya, dated 28.7.1...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayaka Bhat Vs. State, by Assistant Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR176
ORDERMirdhe, J. 1. All these Criminal Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 24.2.1990 passed by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C.. Sorab, in C.C. Nos. 993/89 to 996/89, 998/89 to 1000/89, 1078/89 to 1084/89 and 887/89 respectively. Since all these petitions involve a common question of law, I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in them. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in all these petitions. 3. The petitioner was prosecuted for not paying the annual tax of the vehicle for different period starting from 1.1.74 upto 31.12.1988. After the charges were framed against the petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty, the prosecution examined R.W.1 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1957 (which will hereinafter be...
Tag this Judgment!Ranoji Rao Vs. Srinivasa Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1992
Reported in: I(1993)DMC129; ILR1992KAR3449; 1992(4)KarLJ486
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J1. This Second Appeal by the plaintiffs is referred to a Division Bench on the ground that it involves substantial question of law which requires to be decided by Division Bench. Hence this Appeal before us.2. The plaintiffs have preferred this Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16th September 1980 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Ramanagaram, in R.A.No. 26 of 1979 reversing the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 1979 passed in O.S.No. 170 of 1977 by the learned Munsiff, Ramanagaram. The suit was for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiffs. The relationship between the parties and the properties available for partition are not in dispute. The appellants 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants in the suit. Therefore, in this Judgment, the appellants and the respondents will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants respectively. Plaintiff 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 3 are the brothers. Plainti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »