Karnataka Court December 1997 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.
Dr. R.D. Panathur Vs. State of Karnataka by C.O.D Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)KarLJ154
ORDER1. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 304 of 1997 in C.C. No. 8282 of 1995, on the file of C.O.D. for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 418, 420, 468 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner in this case seeks regular bail. Mr. Sambamurthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 5-11-1995 and has been in custody throughout till this date. He has been in custody for exactly two years and one month. He also submitted that the petitioner is unwell and he requires medical treatment. He also submitted that the Court has referred the petitioner to the hospital for treatment, and all the co-accused have been enlarged on bail. 3. This Court was pleased to refuse bail to the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 2886 of 1996 by an order dated 10th of January, 1997. The bail was refused by this Court on the ground that it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the case was read...
S.H. Taralagatti Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1050
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dated 18-1-1993 passed on Additional Issue Nos. 1 to 3 and Issue Nos. 14 and 16. The Additional Issue No. 1 is;'Whether the suit is hit by Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code?'The learned Munsiff has come to the conclusion that it is hit by Section 11, Explanation IV of Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently he has held that Additional Issue Nos. 2 and 3, dated 6-3-1990 and the Issue Nos. 14 and 16 do not survive for consideration in view of his finding on Additional Issue No. 1.2. The petitioner is a Sitar Artist and was on the list of casual artists of the All India Radio and in particular Dharwad Station of the All India Radio since 1967 and has been giving performance 8 to 10 times a year and those performances were 'live broadcast' from the Dharwad Station of the All India Radio.3. The petitioner has also alleged that the 4th respondent fabricated false cue-sheet of his recordings just to make it appear that he is a fresh artist wi...
C.N. Krishna Murthy Vs. P. Shashidhara Murthy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ601; ILR1998KAR2391; 1998(4)KarLJ376
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri R. Gopal and Sri H.G. Ramesh, learned Counsel for respondent 4.2. This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 20-6-1988 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition made by the present appellant on the ground that the claimant has failed to prove that the accident causing injury to him was the result of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No. PYX 1956 (Tanker). According to the facts of the case, it had been pleaded before the Tribunal by the claimant that on 11-6-1983 at about 8.30 a.m., petitioner was going from Bhadravathi side to Shimoga side on motor cycle bearing No. MES 9604 and when he was passing near Hudco Colony in Nidige village, one lorry bearing No. PYX 1956 came from the hind side of the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motor cycle from the back side. The claimant-petitioner sustained some injuries to his head and so made a claim for compensation to the ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Allabax Nahna Sab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ572; [1998(79)FLR473]; ILR1998KAR1500
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated December 26, 1988 delivered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Belgaum District, Belgaum in WCA. 23/1987, awarding the claimant a total sum of Rs. 83,516.25 paise as compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of accident upto the date of payment and providing for penalty to the tune of 25% over and above the amount of compensation awarded. 2. On behalf of the Insurance Company, the principal contention that has been raised which had been seriously pressed before me is that the Tribunal has illegally directed the amount of interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the amount of compensation as well as penalty assessed at the rate of 25% over the total amount of compensation to be payable by the Insurance Company. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles...
Karnataka State Financial Corporation and anr. Vs. Venkateswara Matche ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1997
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2612
A.J. Sadashiva, J.1. Though this appeal is listed for admission, the same is heard on merits and disposed of by this Judgment with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides.2. This appeal is by the defendants in O.S. No. 1702/89 on the file of the learned XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for a Judgment and Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing any order under Section 29 or 30 of the State financial Corporation Act, without issuing Notice by the Board of Directors and without the Board of Directors hearing the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence passed the Decree as follows:'The plaintiff shall be heard by the competent person in accordance with the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act before an order under Section 29 of the Act is passed against the plaintiff. The defendants is directed to bring to the notice of the plai...
Jayaraja Hegde Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: ILR1998KAR105; 1998(1)KarLJ426
ORDER1. In this petition the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Karkala, on 12-8-1986 in case No. TRL. 1026/1976-77 granting occupancy rights to R-3, Yuvaraja Poovani in respect of Survey Nos. 222/4 (2 acres 56 cents), 222/5 (5 acres 44 cents), 222/9 (45 cents), 222/10 (64 cents), 222/11 (45 cents), 222/12 (14 cents), 222/13 (34 cents), 222/15 (2 acres 69 cents) and 222/16 (5 acres 91 cents) situated in Marne village, has been challenged.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for R-1 and R-2 and the learned Counsel for R-3.3. R-3, Yuvaraja Poovani filed Form No. 7 dated 28-12-1974 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the above bits of land. In the Form No. 7 the third respondent showed Chandranatha Swamy Devaru Madhurapatna Basti as the owner.4. The Tribunal by its earlier order dated 2-2-1977 rejected the Form No. 7 filed by the third respondent. Thereupon the third respondent filed Writ Petition No. 12017 of 1981. This Court by its o...
Y. Krishnamurthy Vs. Sharanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALD(Cri)264; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)273; [1999]96CompCas205(Kar); ILR1998KAR333; 1998(2)KarLJ1
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. For resolving the judicial dissent expressed by two Hon'ble judges of this court, the matter has been referred to us for resolving the controversy by,an authoritative pronouncement. The conflicting views are found in the judgments of justice A. B. Murgod delivered in D. Puttaswamy v. Ramahrishna (Criminal Revision Petition No. 146 of 1995, decided on April 3, 1995), and of justice B. N. Mallikarjuna in G. Ekantappa v. State of Karnataka : ILR1997KAR1014 . The controversy relates to the interpretation of the provisions of sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The point for consideration is to determine the period of limitation prescribed under section 142 for filing the complaint for an offence under section 138 of the said Act.2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties it is necessary to have a reference to the provisions of the aforesaid two sections. Section 138 prescribe...
Rama Bommayya Nayak Vs. Valaya Todiyal Mohammed and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ1242
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.9.1988, delivered by Mr. Ramakrishna, District Judge/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uttar Kannada, Distt. Karwar, in Motor Vehicles Case No. 116 of 1985, holding that the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 1,27,000, but as petitioner's contributory negligence was also there, he may be entitled to be awarded and to grant only 50 per cent of the amount of compensation awarded, due to his negligence which was found to be 50 per cent. It held that petitioner is as such, entitled to get a sum of Rs. 63,500, as compensation out of Rs. 1,27,000 and it held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the claim petition have been jointly and severally responsible to pay the amount of compensation.2. There is no dispute about assessment of quantum of damages as assessed by the Tribunal to be to Rs. 1,27,000 in total. The appellant's counsel has only challenged the finding of deduction of the compens...
B. Srinivasaiah Vs. the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1997
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2287; 1998(6)KarLJ715
ORDER1. Petitioner was an employee of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('Corporation' for short). By an order dated 3-6-1988, the Appellate Authority confirmed the orders made by the disciplinary authority dated 6-3-1987, as a result of which, petitioner has approached this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that the order imposing punishment by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is vitiated and the orders are illegal and invalid, inasmuch as the circular instructions issued by the Corporation is only prospective and such circular could not have been issued by respondent-Corporation which would interfere with the discretion and functioning of quasi-judicial authority like disciplinary authority.2. Most of the facts are not in dispute. Petitioner while working as Divisional Controller, Mangalore Division, Mangalore was served with a charge memo dated 16-9-1985 containing charges of misconduct a...
R. Mahadeva Vs. Smt. Madamma (Deceased) by L.Rs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)KarLJ148
ORDER ON THE QUESTION OF MAINTAINABILITY OF THE REVISION PETITION1. The short question that arises for consideration in this matter is the maintainability of the revision petition. The petitioner an applicant in I.A. III before the Executing Court in Execution No. 512 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the Small Causes at Mysore has filed this revision petition against an Order dated 23-10-1997, passed by the Executing Court, dismissing his petition, filed under Section 151, C.P.C. for impleading him as a party to the proceeding.2. When the matter came up for hearing on the question of admission, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the revision petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner had to file an appeal if he is aggrieved by the impugned order.3. The facts of the case have been stated by the petitioner in the revision petition in Paras 1 to 6. They can be quoted as follows:'1. The dispute relates to a part of the residential premises of a joint hindu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »