Karnataka Court October 1996 Judgments

N.K. Subramanyam Vs. H. Subramanya Jois and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997CriLJ4555

M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner in this case is appearing in person. The learned Advocate General had refused sanction under the Contempt of Courts Act but the matter was placed before the Court because one of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that a case for contempt action has in fact been made out and that the learned Advocate General has over-looked certain aspects of the matter. The Court needs to take note of the fact that the allegations of contempt are effectively directed against certain members of the Bar some of whom happen to be senior members of the Bar. It may be that the Advocates are not immune under the Contempt of Courts Act but at the same time, one needs to take cognizance of the fact that Advocates are officers of the Court, that they are required to perform their functions on behalf of the parties to whom they represent and that some times these duties in hotly contested proceedings have to be rather unpleasant. In view of this situation, a Court wil...

Regional Transport Officer Vs. Nagendra

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR488; 1997(1)KarLJ21

Chidananda Ullal, J.1. The State being aggrieved by the order dated 10.9.1990 passed in C.C.No. 4904/1990 by the Learned Munsiff and Additional J.M.F.C, Bhadravati imposing a fine less than the statutory minimum on the respondent-accused, has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the sentence of fine.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The respondent-accused was chargesheeted before the Learned Munsiff and Additional J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi punishable under Section 190(2) of Central Motor Vehicles Act 1988 read with Rule 115(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 1989. The respondent-accused appeared before the Learned Magistrate and pleaded guilty for the offences alleged against him, whereupon the learned Magistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- as against the respondent-accused.3. It is the said order now under challenge by the State before this Court on the ground that the statutory minimum fine that could have been imposed by the Learned Magistrate would have bee...

Parasmal S. JaIn Vs. Deputy Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR830; 1997(1)KarLJ18

M.S. Vishwanath, J.1. The Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No. 1. Accordingly, she takes notice.2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the Learned Government Pleader.3. In this appeal, the appellant-plaintiff has challenged the order dated 21.1.1987 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Gadag, on I.A.No. II filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act staying the suit in O.S.No. 71/1986 and allowing I.A.II.4. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit against the 1st defendant -Deputy Commissioner, 2nd defendant - Chairman, Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation and the third defendant - M/s. D. Ganesh Shankar Naushad, Bangalore, claiming Rs. 86,000/-.5. The plaintiff's case is that on account or illegal locking of the godown the plaintiff was made to unnecessarily pay Rs. 8000/-towards rent. His further case is that 113 barrels of oil were taken into custody illegally. He has incurred a loss of Rs. 36,160/- in this regard. Th...

S. Venkataraman Vs. P.V. Singri and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)923; 1997CriLJ1840; ILR1997KAR619

Saldanha, J. 1. This is an unusual contempt proceeding in which the Petitioner has alleged Criminal Contempt on the part of the learned 4th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The petitioner had instituted a private prosecution before that Court alleging a series of offences on the part of 3 accused who were basically Contractors/Builders with whom the petitioner and his co-residents had certain dealings. The petr. had inter alia alleged offences of cheating, breach of trust and a host of other charges under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership, Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management & Membership) Act 1972. It is unnecessary for us to set down the facts of the charges in detail except to mention that as often happens, a long period of time had elapsed between the transactions when they originally commenced and what transpired thereafter. The learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the dispute was of a purely civil character and theref...

Evershine Granites Vs. Dy. Commr. for Transport, Bangalore Div. and an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR143

G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The twin questions which have fallen for consideration herein are:-i) Whether the crane is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the '1988 Central Act') thereby making the same exigible to tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (for short 'the Taxation Act') and,ii) If found to be so exigible, under which item of part-A to the Schedule of the Taxation Act will it fall for the purpose of determining the rate of tax.2. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are respectively the owners of cranes bearing Registration No. CKI 4482 and CKJ 5187. These two vehicles were registered on 8.9.1986 and 5.9.1987 as cranes. The tax payable in respect of these vehicles was assessed at Rs. 500/- per quarter under item 16 of Part-A of the Schedule to the Taxation Act. Since according to the taxation authorities, the vehicle should have be-en classified as goods vehicles and made liable to higher rate of ...

Smt. C. Nirmala Kamath Vs. Commissioner for Transport and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR343

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J1. The petitioners are the owners of Goods vehicles, which are registered in the neighbouring States like Kerala and Andhra Pradesh. They ply their vehicles in the State of Karnataka as well on the basis of special permits obtained under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Central Act'), which reads as follows:-'(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act by the Central Government, the Regional Transport Authority of any one region or, as the case may be, the State Transport Authority, may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit in relation to a vehicle covered by a permit issued under Section 72 (including a reserve stage carriage) or under Section 74 or under Sub-section (9) of this section for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up ...

The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. R.H. Narayanappa and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR2173

M.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 29.7.1988 in M.V.C.No. 572/86 on the file of the MACT Bangalore Rural district, directing the insurance company to satisfy the award of Rs. 59,500/ - with interest at 12% in favour of the claimant, the insurance company has preferred this appeal.2. The claimant also preferred cross-objections claiming for enhancement of compensation.3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.4. The brief facts leading to this appeal are : that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the claimant has sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry No. CAA 5199 driven by its driver on 12.5.86 at 12.20 p.m., while he was moving as the pillion of the motor cycle No. MYK 1535 driven by R.W.1, and awarded a compensation as stated above. The insurance company has contended that it is not liable to pay as there was no coverage of insurance as on the date of the accident. However, the Tribuna...

Mahadevappa D. Gouri and ors. Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3332; 1996(7)KarLJ566

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioners herein, had filed the present Writ Petition on 5.8.1996 with the prayer that the respondent-University be directed to consider their cases for admission to the post graduate course in veterinary sciences (M.V.Sc) for the academic year 1996-97.2. On 27.5.1996 the respondent University had issued a notification (Annexure 'A') inviting applications for admission to the post graduate course in question. As per this notification the applicant was required to have passed the Bachelor Degree in Veterinary Science (B.V.Sc). Note 5 of the said notification inter alia further provided that'the candidate should produce original OGPA/OGPA Card at the time of interview failing which, they will not be interviewed.'3. Admittedly, the petitioners had pursued their studies and training in B.V.Sc. course as students of the respondent University. At the time of issuance of the notification at Annexure 'A', the petitioners were in the final year of B.V.Sc course, wh...

Associated Managements of Primary and Secondary Schools and ors. Vs. S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3669; 1996(7)KarLJ664

ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Alleging violation of fundamental rights, particularly, Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and (g), 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution, the petitioners who have privately owned, managed and run unaided schools have challenged the Constitutional validity of various provisions of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The main grievance is projected against the provisions of Section 3(2) (a to h), 7(1) (a to i), 38, 41(2) (b) (3), 41(5), 42, 43, 44, 48, 67 128 and 145 of the Act, It is prayed that the aforesaid offending sections of the Act be declared ultravires of the Constitution and for issuance of directions to respondents restraining them from either individually or jointly enforcing the said sections.2. In reply, the vires of the Act have been justified as not violating any fundamental right. It is submitted that the Act was enacted to achieve planned development of educational institutions, inculcation of healthy educational practice, maintenance a...

Channappa and anr. Vs. Channaveerappa and anr.

Court: Karnataka

M.B. Vishwanath, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been filed by defendants-1 and 2.2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 408/1973 before the Additional Munsiff, Madhugiri, against defendants 1 to 3 praying for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property which is 1/3rd share in S.No. 40, being the purchaser of the equity of redemption. He has also prayed for a direction to the first defendant to accept the mortgage money from the plaintiff and give an endorsement of discharge and to deliver possession of the suit schedule property. He has also prayed for mesne profits.3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit.4. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Munsiff, the plaintiff preferred R.A.No. 36/1984 before the Civil Judge, Madhugiri.5. The Learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal and granted the decree prayed for by the plaintiff.6. Defendants-1 and 2 have filed the present second appeal.7. The plaintiff's case is:The property S.No. 40...