Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ145
ORDER1. A certain extent of land situate in Archakarahalli village of Ramanagaram Taluk, was notified for acquisition in connection with the construction of a Bus stand. The notified area included land in Sy. No. 136/3 and 136/4, claimed by the petitioners herein. Objections were filed to the proposed acquisition which were rejected culminating in the issue of a final notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act publishedin the Government Gazette on 11th of June, 1997. Aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings. 2. Mr. Subbarao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were small land holders dependent entirely upon agriculture for their survival. He submitted that the land in question was not ideally suited for being used as a Bus stand and that the final notification was vitiated by reason of the failure of the authorities to serve a notice upon the petitioners in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2696; 1997(4)KarLJ566
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. Appellant, who is a practising Advocate, has filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge refusing to grant interim relief and disposed of the petition on merits. 2. Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, by consent, we have heard the learned Counsel on both sides, on the merits of the matter and disposed of the same by this judgment. 3. The brief facts of the case are,--The appellant is the owner of a Hero Honda vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-04-H-236. On 23-7-1994 while the appellant was coming on the Bannerghatta Road in Bangalore, the 5th respondent stopped the vehicle and asked him to produce the driving licence, Insurance Certificate, Registration Certificate, etc. As he was not carrying the said documents, he could not produce the same, when demanded. The appellant received a notice in Form No. 298 (vii) stating that he had violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and directed him to appear before the T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2449; 1998(5)KarLJ218
ORDER1. The petitioner is working as a Deputy Chief Manager in the respondent-Corporation. He was considered for promotion to the post of Chief Manager (C & M) alongwith respondent 2. The Corporation promoted the second respondent in the process ignoring the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition, in S.P. Raghunath v K.S.S.I.D.C. Limited, in this Court in which he assailed the promotion of the second respondent on five distinct grounds. These were (i) that the Selection Committee had not followed the procedure prescribed by Rule 6 of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules; (ii) since Departmental enquiries are pending against the second respondent he could not have been selected or appointed; (iii) that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted; (iv) that the Committee had while making the selection ignored the relevant material which it was bound to take into consideration; and (v) that the recommendations of the committee was contrary to Articles of Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ561; 1998(4)KarLJ268
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri K. Suryanarayana Rao and Sri G.G. Chagashetty, learned Counsel for the respondents. This appeal arises from the judgment and award given by the Tribunal in MVC Case No. 98 of 1997, which has been decided by the Tribunal along with other MVC cases. There is no dispute about the amount of compensation assessed nor is there any dispute about the cause of accident. On behalf of the Insurance Company it has been contended that the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the liability of the Insurance Company was in full with reference to the amount of compensation awarded and in directing the appellant-Insurer to pay the balance amount of compensation, though Rs. 15,000/- has already been paid out, of the sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded. The learned Counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount is 100%. In support of this contention the appellant's learned Couns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ168
1. The plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their suit by the First Appellate Court though they succeeded before the Trial Court.2. The suit is for injunction in respect of a 3' wide pathway running South to North all along touching the Western boundary of the respective Mulgeni properties of both plaintiffs and defendants. The property belong to one John Joseph Britto on Warga right and the said John Joseph Britto had granted the said property on Mulgeni to one Juvam Menezes, son of Salvadore Menezes under a Mulgeni lease deed dated 12-6-1913. This Juvam died leaving a Will dated 7-4-1930 bequeathing his properties to his wife Seraphine Menezes. On 19-8-1935, she sold the Northern portion of 25 cents of land to one Francis Pinto and that property is mentioned as Schedule 'B' in the plaint. The said vendor has given half right in the well situated in the common boundary and also provided for the purchaser a right of pathway of 3' width running South to North touching the Western bound...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)ALT(Cri)26; ILR1998KAR1136; 1998(2)KarLJ661
M.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12/29-6-1995 in S.C. No. 43 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, for the murder of Gayathramma and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months and further convicted for an offence under Section 302, IPC for committing the murder of Bhaskar and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 3 months. 2. Heard Sri R.B. Deshpande for the appellant and learned Additional S.P.P. for the State. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and probabilities of the case. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt against the appellant by cogent and convincing evidence, suppressed the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ131
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri C. Narasimhachar and Sri B.E. Kotian, learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondents.2. The short point involved in this case is who is liable to pay the arrears of tax under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1959 in a case where the vehicle has been transferred by the owner and intimation thereof had been sent to the authorities concerned. This is the short question that is involved. The facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. CAD 1797 Matador Seater. According to the petitioner's case, he had been paying taxes in respect of this vehicle and paid it upto 1-3-1987. As the petitioner's vehicle developed some mechanical problem, he sold the vehicle on 29-5-1987 to respondent 3 for a sum of Rs. 38,900/- and delivered the possession thereof on the very same day to the purchaser i.e., to the 3rd respondent and had taken sale receipt and the delivery note from the 3rd ...
Tag this Judgment!