Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)ALT(Cri)355; 1998(4)KarLJ92
ORDER1. In this petition the petitioner has questioned the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to produce documents sought for by the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case are, the respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he has created certain documents against the interest of the society, thereby he has committed an offence under Section 464, IPC and Section 109(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, (for short 'the Act'). Along with the complaint, the respondents also made an application under Sections 91 and 93, Cr. P.C. supported with an affidavit. The learned Magistrate however has not taken cognizance of the offence and he has posted the matter for recording sworn statement of the complainant but he passed an order on the application filed by the respondents under Sections 91 and 93, Cr. P.C., the operative portion of which reads:'Heard Sri M.N.B. and G.B.B., Advocates on the application filed under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ763
ORDER1. In this petition the petitioner has questioned the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to produce documents sought for by the respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are, the respects filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that he has created certain documents against the interest of the society, thereby he has committed an offence under Sec. 464 IPC and 109(1) of the Karnataka Co-op. Societies Act, 1959, (for short 'the Act'). Along with the complaint, the respondents also made an application U/Ss. 91 & 93 Cr. P.C. supported with an affidavit. The learned Magistrate however has not taken cognizance of the offence and he has posted the matter for recording sworn statement of the complainant but he passed an order on the application filed by the respondents under Ss. 91 & 93 Cr. P.C., the operative portion of which reads : 'Heard Sri M. N. B. and G. B. B. Adv., on the application filed u/Ss. 91 & 93 Cr. P.C. Perused the affidavit in su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]94CompCas16(Kar); ILR1998KAR386; 1997(4)KarLJ401
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner claims to have borrowed a loan of Rs. 1,12,000 on September 17, 1985, from the respondent-bank for the purpose of purchasing a tractor and trailer. The petitioner has not given the particulars of the loan documents executed by him in that behalf, viz., on-demand promissory note, hypothecated deed and other documents. On the ground that petitioner had failed to pay the amounts due, the bank seized the tractor and trailer of the petitioner bearing Registration Nos. CNB 6511 and 6512. The bank has issued an auction sale notice in the newspaper (annexure 'E') proposing to auction the seized tractor and trailer, on June 9, 1993. The petitioner claims that the amount claimed by the bank is excessive and he also claims that the tractor and trailer being agricultural implements, they cannot be seized and sold for recovery of the amount due by him. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition (i) for a declaration that the amounts paid by him exceed the amo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR186]; 1998(5)KarLJ318
1. I have heard the learned Advocates. In the light of the grounds adduced, the delay is condoned. I.A.I. is allowed. As far as the merits are concerned, appellant's learned Advocate vehemently submitted on the basis of the copy of the policy document which he produced, that there is a basic error in this case insofar as the policy has been taken out in the names of M/s. S.B. Minerals whereas the claimant indicated that he wasworking for S.V.K. Iron Ore Mines. Learned Advocate submits that the two concerns are independent and distinct and that a policy taken out by the former under no circumstances foists a liability on the Insurance Company in respect of an employee of the latter. He submits that the Commissioner having brushed aside this point by stating that the two concerns are one and the same is untenable in law and that the award will have to be quashed on this ground. 2. The claimant's learned Advocate has submitted before me that the firm of which his client is an employee in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. This appeal was taken up for hearing principally because the respondent's learned Advocate pointed out that his client who was a workman with the Company had sustained an injury in the year 1990 and the Authority constituted under the Workmen's Compensation Act awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,923.00. The Company who is the appellant has deposited certain amounts with the Authority but the respondent's learned Advocate submitted that by virtue of the interim order, that his client has not been able to withdraw the amount. 2. The only point that has been urged in this appeal is that having regard to the accepted position that the applicant was a Watchman, that he was supposed to have been chasing a thief, some wire nail entered his heel as a result of which he sustained a fall and injured himself, whether the compensation awarded was commensurate with the injuries sustained by him and whatever other incidental ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. This appeal was taken, up for hearing principally because the respondent's learned Advocate pointed out that his client who was a workman with the Company had sustained an injury in the year 1990 and the Authority constituted under the Workmen's Compensation Act awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,923-00. The Company who is the appellant has deposited certain amounts with the Authority but the respondent's learned Advocate submitted that by virtue of the interim order, that his client has not been able to withdraw the amount.2. The only point that has been urged in this appeal is that having regard to the accepted position that the applicant was a Watchman, that he was supposed to have been chasing a thief, some wire nail entered his heel as a result of which he sustained a fall and injured himself, whether the compensation awarded was commensurate with the injuries sustained by him and whatever other incidental loss it was suppos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR318
ORDERVenkatesha Murthy, J.1. The petitioner herein who was an occupant of land as a tenant in Sy.No. 290-1AP measuring one acre 24 cents and Sy.No. 270-4B measuring 22 cents of Bettampady Village, Puttur Taluk sought and obtained occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in LRYT 6055/74-75 dated 8.2.1988. The petitioner claims that Sy.No. 281-1A measuring 3 acres out of 4 acres and Sy.No. 270-3A measuring 75 cents out of 7 acres 15 cents constituted Kumki to the land of the petitioner in Sy.No. 290/1AP and he is entitled to the kumki privilege in these lands as provided by law. The petitioner apprehends that as per Annexure-B (Circular issued dated 9.4.1992) the Revenue Department of the Government of Karnataka has sought to issue a clarification regarding kumki privilege in Dakshina Kannada, to the effect that on the vesting of land under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the tenant who is conferred occupancy rights would not be entitled to kumki privilege. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. All these petitions are filed by the declarants who had been issued with notices as at Annexure-B to E under Section 122-A of the Land Reforms Act. The petitioners have challenged the said notices in these writ petitions. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.T. Rayareddy, the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri S.S. Guttal, appearing for respondent 1-State and respondent 2-Land Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rayareddy while taking me through backdrop of the case submitted that the impugned notices challenged by the petitioners is on the ground that respondent 2, Tribunal has got no power to review its own order passed earlier under Section 67 of the Land Reforms Act as long as it had not made out a case under Section 122-A of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that in issuing the impugned notices, the Tribunal had not notified therein as to what prompted the Tribunal to cause a issuance of the same, for the said no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(3)KarLJ632
ORDER1. The petitioners' learned Advocate has filed a representative petition on behalf of the Gram Panchayat wherein he has contended that the original permit that was granted has been drastically altered within a period of hardly six or seven months and that it has virtually been converted into an inter-State permit. The submission proceeds on the footing that when the permit was granted, the authority considered the public interest and he contends that as a result of the deviation the present petitioners are prejudiced because there are only two services on that road and with the withdrawal of this service in the area that the petitioners, belong to goes very much against the interest of the travelling public. He has drawn my attention in particular to the manner in which the deviation was applied for and the ground given is that the area passes through a reserve forest and the second ground is that the persons from Tamihiad visit some areas in this State and therefore this service ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ441
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The main grievance of the appellants is that as the Forest Department of the appellant-State was not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court as also the learned Single Judge were not justified in passing the award or affirming it. It is not disputed that despite service the appellants did not appear before the Labour Court and in their absence reference was decided on the basis of the evidence led by the respondent-workman only. The question as to whether the Forest Department is an industry or not is basically a question of fact which could be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence led. The Forest Department of the appellant-State, in all cases, cannot be termed to be performing the sovereign functions of the State as has been held by the Supreme Court in Chief Conservator of Forests and Another v Jagannath Maruti Kondhare. The burden of proof to establish that the Forest Department was not an industry within...
Tag this Judgment!