Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(3)KarLJ594
ORDER1. The petitioners, in substance are seeking an appropriate writ or direction against the respondents for shutting down of the rice mill set up by the 8th respondent, which is situated contiguous to the residential house of the petitioners causing health hazards by emitting husk and dust in the entire atmosphere surrounding the area, resulting in violation of the fundamental right of the petitioners as also the Pollution Control Laws.MATERIAL FACTS2. The petitioners are having their residential house in Gandhinagar lying within the territorial jurisdiction of Kolar Town Municipality. Pursuant to grant of permit dated 18-9-1993 (Annexure-D) issued under Section 5 of the Rice Milling (Regulation) Act, 1958 (in short the 'Rice Milling Act' only) the 8th respondent has established a sheller type rice milling industry next to the house of the petitioners. Subsequently, he has also been granted licence dated 22/28-2-1994 under the said Act which was valid up to 31-12-1994. Thereafter, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ74
G. Patri Basavana Goud, J.1. Survey Numbers 64 and 118/1 of Nagawara Village in Bangalore North Taluk measuring 3 acres 23 guntas and 1 acre 11 guntas respectively, owned by Nanjundaswajny, appellant in W.A. No. 7189 of 1996, Survey Nos. 61/1 and 63/2 of the same village respectively measuring 1 acre 34 guntas and 32 1/2 guntas, owned by the appellant in W.A. No. 7190 of 1996, namely Pillanna since deceased by his legal representatives, and Survey No. 65 of the same village measuring 1 acre 32 guntas owned by Vehkatappa and his brothers who are appellants in W.A. No. 9704 of 1996, were among 179 survey numbers proposed for acquisition for the purpose of housing scheme of the Karnataka Housing Board. Preliminary notification was issued on 27-6-1992 and was published in the Official Gazette on 30-7-1992. On consideration of objections of the appellants and others under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short), a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ71
ORDER1. Vehicle bearing Registration No. KLN 2464 was originally registered in the State of Kerala. In December, 1989 the petitioner purchased and brought the same to the State of Karnataka. He then made an application to the Regional Transport Officer, Raichur for transfer of ownership in his favour. This application was rejected by the RTO on the ground that the vehicle did not satisfy the requirements of the Rule 151 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules of 1989. Aggrieved the petitioner filed W.P. No. 31 of 1990 and succeeded in getting a direction against the RTO for registration of the vehicle. Consequently the vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 1-2-1990. Shortly thereafter the RTO issued a demand notice Annexure-A to the petition, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9,030/- on account of the tax payable in respect of the vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957 for the period of 1-12-1989 to 31-1-1990. This demand the petitioner uns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ134
G. Patri Basavana Goud, J.1. Appellants are brothers. They are joint owners of Survey No. 72/1/2 of Gangavathi in Raichur District measuring 3 acres 12 guntas. The said land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of 4th respondent, namely the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gangavathi. Preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Gazette dated 24-1-1985. Declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was made on 28-8-1986. Appellants questioned the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Writ Petition No. 18532 of 1986. Learned Single Judge, by his order dated 28-11-1995 having dismissed the said petition, appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.2. Appellants questioned the acquisition on the ground of mala fides. They further questioned the validity of declaration under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ628
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Denial of pensionary benefits under the Regulations framed by the appellant-Banks in the year 1995 to the respondent-employees who had voluntarily retired from service between 1-1-1986 and 31-10-1993, under the then prevalent Voluntary Retirement Scheme, brought them to the Court for the grant of appropriate relief. The respondent-employees prayed for quashing of Regulation 29 which allegedly deprived them the benefit of the Pension Scheme. It was submitted that the cut-off date prescribed under the aforesaid Regulations was arbitrary, discriminatory, ultra vires and violative of Articles 14, 16(1), 21, 39(d) and 41 of the Constitution of India. They prayed that a declaration be issued holding them entitled to the grant of pension on voluntary retirement under the Regulations of 1995. It was submitted that a command be issued to the appellant-Banks to grant commutation amount of pension and to pay the same w.e.f. 1st November, 1993 with all consequential benefits inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1998)ACC585; 1998ACJ715; ILR1997KAR2564
C.N. Ashwathanarayana Rao, J. 1. The Insurance Company his filed this appeal against an award in MVC No. 255/94 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court, Raichur, dated 23.01.96 challenging the fastening of the liability of paying compensation on the appellant/3rd respondent.2. The facts which have led to this appeal may briefly be stated as follows:-The respondents 1 & 2 are the Wife and minor son of the deceased Rama Rao who died in a Motor Vehicle accident filed an application for compensation. The petitioner's case was that on 20,5.1994 at about 9.30 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding on Gangavathi Sindhanoor road, a lorry bearing No. KA-15/0049 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the 3rd respondent (1st respondent before the Tribunal) dashed against Rama Rao resulting in the spot death. b) The Insurance Company in its written statement contended that the 1st respondent - Driver did not possess a valid driving licence and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1999)ACC248; 1998ACJ1204; 1998(6)KarLJ707
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 27-10-1992 delivered by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bangalore, Sub-Division II, in case No. 16 of 1989 against Kaveri v G. Markanda Naidu, whereby the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,200/- as the lump sum compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of deposit. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Sri Kaveri, present appellant was working as a labourer in crushing stones in Rajeshwari Granites. According to the claimant, the claimant, in the application originally made stated, that he was getting monthly wages to the tune of Rs. 300/-per month. It may be mentioned here that the admitted position between the parties is that at a later stage an application was made for amendment amending the claim petition and by substituting the figure of Rs. 600/- per month as salary instead of Rs. 300/- as mentioned originally in the claim petition. In other words ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR847
ORDERTirath S. Thakur1. Even though this petition is posted only for orders, the same has been heard for final disposal with consent. 2. By a notification dated 13th of July 1965, the Government of Karnataka in exercise of its powers Under Section 16(a) of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, exempted from payment of tax motor vehicles exclusively owned and used by institutions doing charitable work and those owned by individuals for giving free medical aid to the public or for providing relief such as supplying food, clothing and medicine in times of natural clamities.Pursuant to the said-notification, a 1969 model motor vehicle bearing Engine No. TI 6697, Chassis No. 1883 and owned by the petitioner Father Mullers Hospital, Kankanady, Mangalore was exempted from payment of tax under the Act subject to the condition that the exemption would be valid only tilt such time the vehicle was owned by the said institution and used for the purposes specified in the Government notif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ767
ORDER1. This petition is filed against the order dated 28-9-1995 passed in P.C. No. 231 of 1995 on the file of the XXI Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore City, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegation that the petitioner while working as clerk in State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore City, during the period between 1982 and 1984 abused his official position by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself by dishonestly or fraudulently making false entries in the fixed deposit ledger maintained with the Bank in the name of Rajasekaran furnishing false particulars and by making use of such false entries as genuine, knowing them to be false and by raising interest payment vouchers. It is also alleged that he opened another S.B. A/c No. 9554 in the Canara Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Banga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2181; 1997(4)KarLJ50
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The defendants are appellants. The suit was laid for specific performance or reconveyance of the property under the terms of Ex.P.1. The courts below have concurrently found that Exhibit P 1 is valid and properly executed and the plaintiff is entitled to a decree based on that.It was vehemently submitted before this Court by the Counsel for the appellants that the document is concocted and even one of the witness to Ex.P.1 came to witness box and disown his signature in the Agreement. But the courts below have disbelieved such contention and concurrently found on fact that the document is valid and granted decree. Being decision based on concurrent findings. I do not want to interfere. No question of law is involved and the second appeal is dismissed.2. Before parting with, I would like to make an observation regarding the comment made by the. First Appellate Judge Mr. N.B. Kulkarni on the members of the Bar. That is-'At this juncture I also fail not to note tha...
Tag this Judgment!