Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(1998)ACC71; 1999ACJ422; 1997(4)KarLJ311
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal arises from the award given under Motor Vehicles Act for compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent vide award dated 28.8.1992 delivered by Mr. S.S. Bhagoji, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. II, Bijapur, in M.V.C. Case No. 250 of 1990.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the claimant/appellant, who was aged about 12 years and who was a student of VIII class, on 4.3.1990 sustained injuries on account of the accident that had taken place on that day at 13.15 hours near P.W.D. Office, Lokapur. The accident was alleged to have been caused as well as has been held to have taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the respondent No. 1, the driver of the lorry bearing No. MYL 5335. According to the claimant's case, the lorry going in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner and passed over the right foot of the petitioner and the right foot of the claimant was co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1119; 1997(2)KarLJ399
ORDERFarooq, J.1. Petitioner in both these Revision Petitions are one and the same and he is the landlord in respect of the petition schedule premises. The respondents in H.R.R.P. 4199/90 are the legal representatives of the first respondent and the respondent in the connected revision petition is the second respondent before the Trial Court.2. The petitioner initiated the eviction proceedings against the respondents stating, that CTS No. 790 and 791 consisting of three shops situated in Kirans Bazaar, facing south, originally belonged to one Darbar family and in a family partition, it was allotted to the share of one Bansilai Darbar from whom the petitioner purchased that part of the petition schedule premises towards east with specific boundaries and the remaining half was purchased by one Abhaya Kumar Shah under registered Sale Deeds. It is stated by the landlord that out of the shop portions purchased by him, petition shop to the eastern adjoining Ganeshmal shop building occupied b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997CriLJ4249
Saldanha, J. 1. This is a suo motu contempt proceeding wherein notice to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act for having committed criminal contempt was issued to four respondents. The first of these respondents was the publisher of 'The Economic Times' newspaper of Bangalore. The second one was the printer, the third one was the press-reporter who had written the news report in the issue of the paper dated 7-11-96 and the fourth respondent was Captain T. S. Gopalakrishna who is the person responsible for making an application to the Advocate General of Karnataka praying for sanction to prosecute a sitting Judge of the Karnataka High Court, Justice M. P. Chinnappa, on the charge that the learned Judge had committed contempt of Court. Captain Gopalakrishna, hereinafter referred to as the the fourth respondent, was the respondent in Criminal Petition Nos. 2554, 2555, 2556, 1241, 1379 and 1703 of 1995 which had been heard and disposed of by Justice M. P. Chinnappa. Accor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)ALT(Cri)236; I(1998)DMC275; ILR1997KAR3149; 1997(3)KarLJ493
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is one of the most unhappy and disgraceful cases that have come before the Courts in recent times. The facts of the case make sad reading in so far as the appellant before us is a poor villager who was working as a coolie. The appellant's wife had died and he married one Sharadamma who already had a son through her previous marriage. Thereafter the accused and Sharadamma had three children and it is evident to us from the record that for a variety of reasons including the economic condition of the parties, that the relations between husband and wife got estranged. Sharadamma thereafter went to reside separately in a room at a village by the name of Henchinasiddapura and the accused continued to stay for sometime at Agaradahalli. Sharadamma had taken the three children with her and she was also residing with her son Sanjeeva. Sometime prior to the incident the accused who was reduced to desperate economic conditions, went to Sharadamma and asked her for help. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997CriLJ3691; 1997(3)KarLJ208
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No. 13178/90 (P.C. 71/89) on the file of the III Addl. Munsiff & JMFC., M'lore. D. K.2. The brief facts of the case are the respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on the allegation that the petr. issued a cheque in a sum of Rs. 83,894/- towards repayment of the amount due to the respondent. The said cheque is dt. 31-7-1989. The respondent presented the cheque to the bank but the same was dishonoured by the bank with an endorsement 'stopped payment'. Thereafter on 13-9-1989 the respondent got issued a legal notice to the petitioner. The said legal notice was returned unserved with a postal share that 'addgressee refused'. Hence, the complaint was filed on 27-9-1989 before the Court. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence directed to issue process. The said order is questioned in this case.3. Heard the learned counsel for petr. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR723
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as 'APMC') - petitioner has challenged the Order dated 9.9.1992 (Annexure-E) passed by the State Government, in this Writ Petition.2. The facts of the case are:-The lands in Survey No. 6/4 measuring 23 guntas and in Survey No. 14/1B measuring 1 acre 28 guntas situate in Byatrayanpura village, along with other lands were proposed for acquisition in the preliminary notification dated 31.3.1987 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for the purpose of establishing a sub-market yard by the APMC. This notification was followed by a final notification dated 12.5.1988 issued under Section 6(1) of the Act. These two notifications were challenged by the 4th respondent before this Court in WP.No. 1284/89. The said Writ Petition was dismissed as not pressed reserving liberty to approach the State Government for withdrawal of acquisition proceedings...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR543; 1997(2)KarLJ302
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Relying upon a judgment of this Court in N.SHIVANNA v. J.B. THIMMAIH 1963(2) Mys. LJ 263 the Trial Court rejected the prayer of plaintiff/petitioner for amendment of his plaint for incorporation of plea of independent transaction of payment of money in addition to what he had already pleaded preferring his claim on the basis of a promissory note. It appears that the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the import of the judgment wherein it was specifically held that there cannot be any inflexible Rule as to whether in suits on insufficiently stamped promissory notes, plaintiffs should, or should not, be permitted to amend the plaint so as to base the suit on the original cause of action. The consideration of such plea depended entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- on basis of a demand promissory note stated to have been executed by the defendant. Dur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1700; 1997(3)KarLJ211
ORDER1. I have heard the learned advocates on both sides. 2. The petitioner's learned advocate has undoubtedly canvassed a very valid point when he submitted that in this case the petitioner was originally arrested on the basis of an allegation that the battery of the vehicle in question was stolen/disposed of by him. Petitioner's learned advocate states that if one were to look at the sequence of events, that the investigation was completed and the police are alleged to have recovered some battery at the instance of the accused; thereafter, a 'B' Report was filed which was accepted by the Court, but on the same day, the police filed a charge-sheet. It is not very clear from the record as to what precisely transpired, but the order of the learned Magistrate seems to indicate that some error had taken place and that the acceptance of the 'B' Report was revoked. 3. Essentially, the petitioner's learned advocate submits that undoubtedly the law as laid down by a Division Bench of this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1997Kant199
1. The instant appeal is filed by the Obstructer to challenge the common order dt. 23-7-96 passed on I.A. No. 3 filed by the respondent 1(i) and 1(ii) herein, an unnumbered I.A. filed by the appellant -- Obstructer under Section 151 of C.P.C. and a memo filed by the Court Receiver in FDP 56/86 passed by the Court of IX Additional City Civil Judge and Sesprovisions Judge at Bangalore City, whereby the Court while allowing I.A. No. 3 rejected the I.A. of the appellant -- Obstructer and further directed that the obstruction placed by the appellant -- Obstructer be removed with police help by the Court Receiver appointed by the Court to execute the warrant issued earlier by the Court to divide the suit property by metes and bounds or effect sale to distribute the sale proceeds among the parties in terms of the preliminary decree in the suit.2. I heard Sri S. Shekar Shetty, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant -- Obstructer and Sri V. Tarakaram, Senior Counsel appearing along wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR1127; 1997(3)KarLJ736
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. The appeal is admitted.2. The instant appeal is filed against the order on I.A.No. IV dt. 10.2.96 in O.S.No. 1949/94 passed by the V Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH No. 13) Bangalore, whereby the said Judge was pleased to allow the said I.A. and further pleased to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC.3. The matter was originally listed for admission. However, in view of the fact that parties are represented, by consent of parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal.4. I heard the Learned Counsel Sri B. Vishwanath Bhandarkar appearing for the appellant, Sri Krishnappa, Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and the Learned Counsel Sri C.S. Prasanna Kumar for Kumar and Kumar, appearing for the respondent No. 2. I have also perused the records, having called for from the Court of V Additional City Civil Judge (CCH No. 13), Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'City Civil Judge').5. The facts in brief of the case are as follows:That the appe...
Tag this Judgment!