Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ308
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by a tenant to challenge the order dated 28-2-1990 passed by the Additional District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Puttur (D.K.) in Appeal No. L.R.A.A. 79 of 1987, whereby the Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal of the respondent 1-landlord had set aside the order dated 29-5-1987 in case Nos. LRY 2534:74-75 and 193:75-76 passed by the respondent 3-Land Tribunal, Sullia.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Sri A. Keshava Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 1-Sri P. Ganapathy Bhat. The respondent 2-landlord (the brother of the respondent 1) having been served with notice had remained absent before this Court. The respondent 3-Land Tribunal, Sullia and the respondent 4-State are represented by the learned Government Pleader Sri S.S. Guttal. I have also perused the case records, both of the Appellate Authority as well as of the respondent 3-Land Tribunal.3. The learned Counsel appear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1554; 2000(4)KarLJ449
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J1. The petitioner's father is the purchaser of the land to an extent of 35 guntas in Sy. No. 91/1B of Kachapur Village, Badami Taluk, Bijapur District, from 3rd respondent-Parwatewwa under a registered sale deed dated 2-8-1971. It appears that the petitioner gave a vardhi in the year 1990 to the Deputy Tahsildar, Guledgud requesting him to enter the name of his father in the record of rights. Incidentally, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a minor at the time of purchase of the land. There was some delay in making such vardhi to the Deputy Tahsildar. Since the report was made after ten years after the petitioner attained majority, the Deputy Tahsildarrejected to effect the change of mutation. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Tahsildar has no such jurisdiction to reject his application for change of mutation even after sufficient time from the date of registration of the document. Proviso to Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2312
ORDER1. Preventive detention or detention without trial is permitted and authorised under the most revered part of the Constitution, Part III, guaranteeing the fundamental rights. Such a detention has to be distinguished from the punitive detention. The object of the preventive detention is to prevent a person not merely from acting in a particular way but from achieving a particular object. The laws relating to preventive detention, though having a source and the authority under the Constitution, are dealt with and regulated under various statutes enacted for the aforesaid purposes. Such laws, regulating preventive detention, have been enacted with the objects spelt out and declared under the relevant statutes. Resort to preventive detention can be had rarely, exceptionally and under specified circumstances. Court of laws in a country, where Rule of Law prevails, do not encourage, and see with favour, the preventive detention. However, where such detention is resorted to, Constitution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]93CompCas926(Kar); ILR1998KAR2803
Mohamed Anwar, J. 1. The judgment dated February 7, 1995, of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Hassan, passed in Cr. A. No. 49 of 1991, dismissing the same, stands challenged in Crl. P. No. 1519 of 1995, by the petitioner, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore, as the insurer of the complainant-bank. 2. In Cr. P.C. No. 426 of 1995, the learned trial magistrate's order dated March 8, 1981, and the said judgment dated February 7, 1995, of the Session's Court confirming that order of the magistrate are challenged by the complainant-bank. 3. The four accused, named (1) Anantha alias Gende, (2) K. N. Manjunatha alias Manja, (3) Ganesha alias Ganeshraj Ballal, and (4) M. K. Ravichandra alias Ravi alias Kutti (A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, respectively) were prosecuted for the offences under sections 120B and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, before the learned C.J.M., Hassan, in C.C. No. 11 of 1989 by PW-43, Deputy Superintendent of Police of Hassan, Sub-division (hereinafter refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)150CTR(Kar)360; ILR1998KAR669; [1998]231ITR660(KAR); [1998]231ITR660(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is an assessee under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. 2. In this petition, he has prayed for a declaration that searches of the business premises of the petitioner and the residential premises of their partners conducted by the second respondent on September 25, 1997, are illegal and void in law. 3. Sri S. P. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously submitted that the provisions of sections 62 to 68, Finance Act, 1997, provide for voluntary disclosure of income by any person; and if a search and seizure of the premises of a person/assesses is conducted, the said person/assesses is not entitled for the benefit of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'), and, therefore, he would submit that till the expiry of the period fixed in the scheme, i.e., December 31, 1997, it must be held by implication that the power conferred on the authorities to search the busin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)ALT(Cri)232; 1998CriLJ2672; 1998(4)KarLJ636
ORDER1. The judgment dated 7-2-1995 of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Hassan passed in Cr. A. No. 49 of 1991 dismissing the same, stands challenged in Cr. P. No. 1519 of 1995 by the petitioner 'The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore', as the insurer of the complainant-Bank. In Cr. P.C. No. 426 of 1995 the learned Trial Magistrate's order dated 8th March, 1981 and the said judgment dated 7-2-1995 of Session's Court confirming that order of Magistrate are challenged by the complainant-Bank. 2. The four accused named, (1) Anantha @ Gende, (2) K.N. Manju-natha @ Manja, (3) Ganesha @ Ganeshraj Ballal and (4) M.K. Ravichandra @ Ravi @ Kutti (A1, A2, A3 and A4 respectively) were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 392, IPC before the learned C.J.M., Hassan in C.C. No. 11 of 1989 by P.W. 43-Dy. Superintendent of Police of Hassan Sub-Division, (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.O.') Hassan, on the allegations that pursuant to the conspiracy hatched out between them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR172; 1998(1)KarLJ332
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The purpose and object of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereafter called 'the Act') has successfully been frustrated by the appellant by having resort to technicalities of law and procedural wrangles. The respondent has been subjected to uncalled for litigation for over a period of 17 years. All efforts have been made by the appellant-employers to force starvation upon the respondent and thereby deprive him of the benefits of the orders or award passed in his favour, though after protracted litigation. The controversy between the parties was not such which could have been permitted to prolong for a period of about two decades.2. The only question sought to be adjudicated between the parties is as to whether the respondent, who was admittedly employed by the appellants as Geologist, was a workman or not within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Taking advantage of the loose definition of the workman it has been vehemently urged by the appellants that as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR39]; ILR1998KAR897; 1998(2)KarLJ643
ORDER1. Petitioner was an officer of Indian Overseas Bank. He was dismissed from service by an order dated 22-2-1989 by the Disciplinary Authority, which order has been confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. It is these orders which have brought the petitioner before this Court, aggrieved by the same.2. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to note a few background facts. They are:Petitioner was serving in the respondent-Indian Overseas Bank as Manager. While working in Kannalu Branch of the Bank, he was served with a charge memo dated 28-3-1987 containing charges of misconduct. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo. Not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an Inquiry Officer came to be appointed to enquire into the charges of misconduct. Management did not choose to appoint a Presenting Officer. Delinquent brought this aspect of the matter before the Inquiry Officer, who overruled...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2268
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Though this appeal is posted for admission with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.2. This appeal is filed on behalf of the State by the Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer, challenging the judgment and order made by the Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation, Bijapur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') awarding compensation of Rs. 61,483/- with interest at 6% p.a. to the respondent on account of the death of her son one Sri Mellappa in an unfortunate incident that had taken place when he went to measure water level of Krishna River. The only submission made by Sri Singri learned Government pleader challenging the judgment passed by the Commissioner is that the said Mellappa having become a government servant, the application filed by the respondent under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act of 1923 (hereinafter referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR681; 1998(6)KarLJ386
1. R.S.A. No. 586 of 1994 has been filed by defendant 1 and R.S.A. No. 1030 of 1994 has been filed by defendants 2 to 5 against the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 27 of 1987 by the First Additional District Judge, Belgaum allowing cross-objections of the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants confirming the judgment and decree dated 4-4-1987 passed in O.S. No. 271 of 1984 by the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum and thus decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in entirety.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and respondent I/plaintiff.3. For convenience sake, appellant in R.S.A. No. 586 of 1994 is referred to as defendant 1 and the appellants in R.S.A. No. 1030 of 1994 are referred to as defendants 2 to 5. Respondent 1 as the plaintiff, respondents 2 to 10 as defendants 7 to 15, respondents 11 to 15 as defendants 2 to 6.4. The facts of the case, briefly, stated are as follows: One Huvappa Nesarkar was the original propositus who died...
Tag this Judgment!