Karnataka Court August 1996 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.
The Malleswaram Ladies Association(R) Vs. H.N. Channaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3409; 1996(7)KarLJ26
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. When this Revision Petition came up for admission Sri B.B. Bajentri, learned Advocate, took notice on behalf of the respondent. It was agreed that the C.R.P. itself can be disposed off.2. The respondent herein was working as a Second Division Clerk in the petitioner-institution. On certain alleged charge of misappropriation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and an enquiry was conducted by the Principal of Seshadripuram Evening Law College. After enquiry the worker was found guilty. On the basis of the enquiry report his services were terminated. He filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 8 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act'). Several contentions were urged on the merits of the case as well. The Appellate Authority was mainly impressed by the circumstances that there were two sets of charges framed against the worker; one by the Committee and the oth...
Balachandra Alias Balu Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)336; 1997CriLJ1883; 1997(1)KarLJ372
B.K. Sangalad, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment D/- 11-11-1994 passed in S.C. No. 99/93 by the learned XXI Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under S. 302, I.P.C. 2. The Inspector of Police, Malleswaram Police Station, Bangalore City filed the chargesheet against the appellant/accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for the offence under S. 302, I.P.C. before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, who, in turn, committed this case to the Court of Session. The XXI Additional Sessions Judge has taken up this case for the final disposal and after hearing, the charge has been framed for the said offence and since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, has posted the case for evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 3. The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 13 and got marked Ex. P.P1 to P16 in addition to marking MOs 1 to 14. After ...
R.M.S. Telephone Employees' H.B. Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Government of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR75
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1.The petitioner in all Writ Petitions is a Society registered by the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act for whose benefit the land belonging to the respondent-land owners was proposed for acquisition under the notification dated 28.4.1983 followed by a final notification dated 28.2.1985 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.2. In respect of the said lands, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award as required under Section 11 of the Act. Thereafter the Government issued three notifications under Section 48 of the Act withdrawing the acquisition in respect of land in, Survey Nos.54/2, 23 and 35 of the Byatarayanapur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. These three notifications are challenged in these Writ Petitions by the Society for whose benefit the land was acquired.3. Sri S.K.V. Chalapathy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these Writ Petitions contended that th...
Kantamani Balramayya Vs. Yelamanchili Gopal Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1993
M.B. Vishwanath, J. 1. The appellant-plaintiff (since deceased by his L.R.) has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C.2. The appellant-plaintiff filed O.S.No. 204/1974 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Bellary, against the three defendants for declaration of this right of way (cart track) to his land bearing S.No. 59-A from the village along the boundary between S.Nos. 62, 60 and 165 (as shown in the plaint sketch). He also prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his right of way (cart track).3. The plaintiff pleaded that he had customary right, easementary right and easement of necessity to use the cart track on the boundaries between S.Nos.62, 60 and 165. The third defendant filled the written statement and this was adopted by the second defendant.4. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit as prayed for. The learned Munsiff declared that the plaintiff had got the right of way (cart track) along A,B,C,C1,C2,D a...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.N. Thipperudraiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: I(1997)ACC627; 1997ACJ878; ILR1997KAR292; 1997(2)KarLJ343
M.P. Chinnappa, J1. These appeals are preferred by the Insurance Companies being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 5.3.90 passed in M.V.C.No. 71/87 and the Judgment & Award dated 24.11.1988 passed in M.V.C. No. 165/87 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, allowing partly the claim petitions for compensation of the petitioners.2. The facts leading to these appeals are that on 31.8.86 at about 10.30 p.m. one K.N. Thipperudraiah and M.R. Sathyamurthy who are the employees of Karnataka Soap and Detergent Ltd. which comes under the Employees State Insurance Corporation were travelling in a Van bearing No. CAR 3865 belonging to the said employer. When the Van reached near the Government Junior College (Ammani College) at Chowdaiah Road, bus bearing No. CAA 918 belonging to Karnataka Government Tourist Development Corporation collided with the Van in which these petitioners were traveling, as a result of which these persons sustained multiple previous injuries including compound fra...
Dr. Y.B. Yalwar Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3012; 1997(1)KarLJ152
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. By consent of parties this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner has been working in the office of the 3rd respondent as General Manager (Operations). One of the terms and conditions of his appointment is a special pay of Rs. 1500/- per month. The complaint of the petitioner is that he has not been paid the special pay of Rs. 1500/- though he has made requests as per Annexures D & E. Another grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled for Rs. 3,000/- per month for leased accommodation irrespective of whether he is staying in his own house or rented accommodation. The petitioner alleges that non-payment of Rs. 1500/ - p.m. from the date of his appointment is highly illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the Board is the competent authority which makes the appointment as statutory body under the Karnataka State Financial Act. As such the petitioner has come up to this Court with the following t...
Baby Sebastian Vs. Vijaya Bank and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas826(Kar); ILR1996KAR3529; 1996(7)KarLJ570
R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. The petitioner is one among the eight defendants in O.A. No. 36 of 1996, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (ninth respondent), filed by the first respondent, in January, 1996. After issuing notice to the defendants and granting opportunity to the defendants to file objections, the Tribunal, by order dated June 24, 1996, set down the case for evidence on July 22, 1996. On that day, the bank examined three witnesses. Defendants Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 were absent. On behalf of defendants Nos. 2 to 4, time was sought for cross-examination. It was refused and the case is posted to August 14, 1996, for the defendants' evidence. According to the petitioner (the third defendant in the suit), when a request for an adjournment was made, the Tribunal ought to have adjourned the matter, as the case was coming up for evidence for the first time, or at least passed over the matter and kept it by for being taken up later in the day; and the refusal by the Tribunal to grant ...
Neeraj Kaul Vs. Kuvempu University and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3130; 1996(7)KarLJ84
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. Petitioner had appeared in the final MBBS examination in the month of February 1996. Statement of marks dated 3.4.1996 obtained by the petitioner pertaining to the said examination which has been placed at Annexure-A shows that out of three subjects, namely Medicine, Surgery and Obstetrics & Gynaecology (for short 'O & G'), petitioner was declared failed in the first subject, namely Medicine.2. The marks obtained by the petitioner is to the following effect:SubjectWrittenOralInternal AssessmentTotal RemarksResult Max/Min MarksMarks Obtd.Max. MarksMarks Obtd.Max. MarksMarks Obtd.Max/Min MarksMarks Obtd.Medi-cineTheory Paper-I808260334028260/130143Paper-II80 Clinical8032 2014100/5046 Total 360189FailSur-Theory geryPaper-I806410260334024260/130159 Paper-II80 Clinical8044 2015100/5059 Total 360218Pass0 & G Theory80324630212012130/6579 Clinical4024 100650/2530 Total 180109Pass Total of Part-II 900516 3. From the above table of marks, it i...
B. Raghava Mendon Vs. Rama S. Mendon and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)KarLJ549
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate and the respondents' learned Advocate. 2. The first point which the petitioner's learned Advocate canvassed was that both the courts have erred in law with regard to the requirement to stay the proceedings pending before the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and to refer the dispute to arbitration since Clause 16 of the partnership deed does make provision for the reference of all disputes of whatsoever nature to arbitration. The learned Advocate has demonstrated to me at some length that both the Courts have gone wrong in law in so far as they came to the conclusion that merely because defendants 2 and 3 did not express their readiness and willingness to go to arbitration when the plaintiff served the original notice, that the court will have to come to the conclusion that there is no readiness and willingness on their part to refer the matter to arbitration. Secondly, the learned Advocate has seriou...
Malayaiah Vs. Smt. G.S. Vasantha Lakshmi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)295; 1997CriLJ163; II(1997)DMC88; ILR1997KAR754; 1997(1)KarLJ232
ORDER1. This revision is by the husband questioning the legality and correctness of the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Mandya dated August 7, 1993 in Cr.R.P. No. 66(A)/91 arising out of the order dated April 1, 1991 in C. Mis. No. 75/88 on the file of the learned Magistrate, Srirangapatna granting maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to each one of three respondents with further direction that the amount awarded in favour of 1st respondent to be paid from April 1, 1991. Learned Magistrate had refused maintenance to the 1st respondent and had ordered maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- each for respondents 2 & 3. 2. I would refer to the parties hereinafter as they are arrayed in the original petition before the learned Magistrate. 3. Petitioners made an application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent praying for atleast a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month for their maintenance. It is undisputed that 1st petitioner G. S. Vasanthalakshmi and the respondent Malayaiah belon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »