Karnataka Court February 1995 Judgments

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravindra Nair

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR2870

Saldanha, J1. Heard appellant's learned Advocate.2. He points out that the Tribunal has erred rather seriously in this case, because the owner, for a variety of reasons, was not made a party to the proceeding. He points out that this fact did come to the notice of the learned Presiding Judge towards the end of the proceedings, but at that point of time, no corrective steps were taken. On a strict construction of law, the learned Advocate points out that the compensation claim could only have been adjudicated against the owner and the solitary purpose of making the Insurance Company a party is because the insured indemnified the owner against the claim and would, therefore, be the party which is required to actually disburse the compensation amount. There can be no two opinions about the fact that this is the correct position in law and that under no circumstance, should the Tribunals proceed with the matter without ensuring that the owner of the vehicle is a party defendant. On the bas...

The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, for Minor Irrigation Project, Gulba ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1996Kant26; ILR1995KAR2073; 1995(3)KarLJ531

1. An inter-related though important facet of law touching the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the Limitation Act has come up for decision in this appeal. Briefly stated, the controversy centres around the question as to whether the State which is obliged to make a reference to the Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in a case where an application for enhanced compensation has been filed, fails to do so for a considerable period of time, can thereafter object to the Court considering the reference on the ground that it is filed beyond the period of limitation. Though it would appear prima facie incongruous that the defaulting party namely the State should at all be permitted to object on the ground of limitation when that delay has occurred due to the default on the part of its own officers, and that, therefore, normally they should be estopped from canvassing any bar, the situation is far more complex because of certainprovisions of law and several judicial decisi...

State of Karnataka Vs. K.S. Manjunathachari and Others

Court: Karnataka

Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. This case is poignant (sic) with tragedy. It is a sad saga of a young girl who met her cruel fate within hardly six months of her marriage. 2. A-1 was married to a young lady by name Bharathi. A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-1. All the accused were charge-sheeted for the offences under sections 302, 201, 203, 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34, IPC and under section 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34, IPC. The Trial Court acquitted A-2 and A-3 the parents of A-1 of all the charges. While acquitting A-1 of the serious charges under sections 302 and 304-B, IPC the Trial Court convicted A-1 for an offence punishable under section 498-A, IPC and sentenced A-1 for a period of three years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months. 3. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 868/1995 against the acquittal of the accused. The accused No. 1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 125/1995 against his convictio...

B.C. Raju Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1995Kant356; ILR1995KAR1104; 1995(2)KarLJ11

ORDER1. The petitioner is a P.W.D. Electrical Contractor. He was entrusted with the work of internal electrification to the composite Housing Scheme IV Phase in the new township, Yelahanka 1 Stage consisting of group I and II numbering 345 houses and II Stage consisting of 362 houses in group I and II by the respondent-Karnataka Housing Board ('the Board' for short). According to the petitioner, he completed the work worth Rs. 7 lakhs. On a representation made by the petitioner to the Board for entrustment of mains to be provided in respect of 1293 houses at Kallahally II phase, Shimoga, stating that he fell into difficulties as he was not allowed to complete the contract work entrusted to him in respect of 707 houses at Yelahanka, the petitioner submits that the Board, after taking into consideration the financial loss incurred by the petitioner, decided to entrust the service main portion of the work in respect of 1293 houses at Kallahally in lieu of internal electrification of 707 h...

Manjunath Kashi Kumtakar Vs. Jainabi Kom Sayyed Idrus Khazi

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR1053; 1995(3)KarLJ114

Venkataraman, J1. This Appeal is filed by the second defendant in O.S.203/67 on the file of the I Addl.Munsiff, Kumta, against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karwar, in R.A.94/73 dismissing his appeal.2. Certain undisputed facts are as hereunder; One Syed Idrus syed Ali Khazi, the original plaintiff in the suit, was the owner of Survey No. 21 of Haritha village in Kumta Taluk. Then the Government assumed the management of this land by order dated 26.3.1951 under Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short 'BT & AL Act') on the ground that it was lying fallow. The Tahsildar, Kumta was appointed as manager and he leased the land in favour of the second defendant (present appellant) for a period of 10 years from 7.4.1951. The Tahsildar declined to extend the lease period beyond 31.3.1961 and he directed the second defendant to handover possession to the owner. In an appeal filed by the second defendant the Assistant Commissioner set a...

Charaka Mathu Gramodyog Sahakar Sangh Vs. Shantha Bai

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1995KAR807; 1995(3)KarLJ126

ORDERHakeem, J.1. This Revision Petition under Section 115 of the C.P.C. is directed against the concurrent findings and order of the Courts below directing eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground under Section 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The premises in question is a non-residential one. The tenancy is not disputed. Originally, the landlady sought for eviction of the tenant on the grounds under Clauses (h) and (f) of Section 21(1) of the Act. The trial Court, having negatived the landlady's claim for possession of the premises on the first ground, allowed the petition on the ground that portions of the premises are unlawfully sub-let in favour of respondents-3 and 4 herein. The order rejecting the landlady's claim under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act not being challenged, has become final. The tenant (petitioner herein) and respondents-3 and 4 questioned the correctness and legality of the said order of eviction on the ground of sub-letting by ...

Gundappa Vs. Divisional Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1995(4)KarLJ646

ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in cancelling the licence granted in his favour for the construction of the building. The petitioner filed an application before the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner under Section 306 of Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The 2nd respondent entertained the same and by his order at Annexure-C held that the petitioner was in exclusive possession of the property from 1977-78 to 1984-85 and therefore the 3rd respondent Municipal Council was in error in cancelling the licence granted in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, he allowed the petitioner's application and forwarded the matter to the Government for confirmation as required under Section 306(2) of the Act. The Divisional Commissioner, assuming jurisdiction under Section 306(2) of the Act, rescinded the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the said order is impugned in this Writ Petition as made without jurisdiction.2. Learned Counsel for ...

Smt. Venkamma and Ohters Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1995Kant351; ILR1995KAR607; 1995(3)KarLJ99

ORDERNanavati, C. J. 1. Appellant No. 1 is the mother and appellants Nos. 2 to 6 are her sons.They question the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge rejecting Writ Petition No. 2697/87, and also the legality of acquisition of their land admeasuring 2 acres and 19 guntas out of Survey No.31/2A of Belligere Village in Bangalore South Taluk.2. In order to provide house sites to homeless persons belonging to weaker sections of the Society the State Government decided to acquire the said land and Sy. No.31/1B and in exercise of its power under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Lands for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), issued a Notification dated 15-6-1982 in that behalf. The notices dated 13-7-1982 calling upon the appellants to show cause why their land should not be acquired were served upon them on 19-6-1984. They filed objections on 18-7-1984. The final notification under Section 3(4) of the Act was issued on 5-2-19...

Karnataka Film Industry Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Karn ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1995Kant397; ILR1995KAR1758; 1995(39)KarLJ431

ORDER1. In this bunch of petitions the petitioners call in question the constitutional validity of Sections 3B and 4A of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as the Act, as inserted by Karnataka Entertainments Tax Amendment Act, (994 (Karnataka Act No. 25 of 1994) with effect from 27th of September, 1994. By the insertion of the said two provisions, the Legislature introduced in the State of Karnataka levy of entertainment-tax on cinematograph shows conducted in Cinema Halls by adoption of the 'Gross Collection Capacity' method also known as the composition system. As a result of the introduction of the said system, levy and collection of tax on entertainments in so far as cinematograph shows in Cinema halts are concerned went out of the purview of Section 3 of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 and ceased to be governed by what is known as 'admission system', according to which, entertainment tax is collected at the prescribed rates in proportion ...

Asgar Ali Khan and Others Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)279; 1995CriLJ2302; I(1996)DMC272; ILR1995KAR636; 1995(2)KarLJ628

ORDER1. Smt. Asiya wife of Syed Shakeel is the complainant. Initially, she has filed a private complaint before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore, against 14 persons alleging the offences punishable under Sections 386, 307, 498A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, and 4, of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. This complaint was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. 3. The police have registered this case in Crime No. 680/94 and the investigation is in progress. 4. The marriage of the complainant was celebrated with one Syed Shakeel on 16-4-1994. Soon thereafter, the problem started, according to the complainant, that she was subjected to both mental and physical cruelty with a view to get more dowry from her parents. 5. Having apprehended that the police will arrest the persons named in the complaint (totally 14 persons), the learned City Civil Judge at Bangalore City was moved for grant of anticipatory b...