Karnataka Court January 1998 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.
State of Karnataka by Saidapur Police, Gulbarga District Vs. Ramanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)40; 1998(3)KarLJ164
Acts/Rules/Orders:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304;Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 28 and 377;Probation of Offenders Act, 1958JUDGEMENTM.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor as also the learned Advocate who represents the accused-respondent. We do not propose to elaborately set out the facts as regards the present criminal appeal because the unfortunate incident is one between two brothers. The deceased Sawarappa and his brother who is the accused had partitioned their property and the two of them continued to have some difference of opinion with regard to a neem tree. On 5-11-1989 at about 2.00 p.m., a verbal altercation took place between the brothers and the evidence before us indicates that the accused picked up a stone and hit the deceased with it. The injury being on the head, the deceased died as a result thereof. The accused was arrested and charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302, Ind...
Siqbathulla Khan Vs. the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)KarLJ188
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Subbanna, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jagannath, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. Gopal Hegde, learned Counsel for the respondent 2.2. The petitioner had questioned the validity of the order dated 25-11-1986 passed by the Land Tribunal. Kanakapura, under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') before the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore District. The said appeal before the Appellate Authority was registered as ALRA 341 of 1987 but pursuant to the abolition of the said authority by Section 6 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1990 and as provided under Section 17 thereof, on application having been made before this Court being C.P. No. 218 of 1993 and the same has been allowed by the order dated 9-1-1992 the appeal has been treated as writ petition.3. By the impugned order, occupancy rights claimed by the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 2 guntas in Sy. ...
Mudderu Thimmappa @ M. Thimmappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1656; 1998(3)KarLJ349
ORDER1. Though this petition is listed for preliminary hearing, the same is heard on merits and disposed of by this order, with a direction to Sri K. Nagaraja, the learned High Court Government Pleader, to take notice for respondents.2. The petitioner filed an application in Form 50 for grant of 5 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 86 of Duggavara Village by regularising his unauthorised occupation of the same, under the provisions of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter called 'the Act').3. Chapter XIII-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') deals with the regularisation of unauthorised occupation of land, according to which any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any land may make an application in writing to the Tahsildar of the Taluk in Form 50 along with the fee prescribed. The said application will have to be considered either by the committee or by the additional committee constituted by the Government in...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Dharmanna an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1998
Reported in: 1999ACJ937; AIR1998Kant298; ILR1998KAR1973; 1998(3)KarLJ409
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168JUDGEMENTThis appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation to challenge the judgment and award in case No. MVC 436 of 1988, dated 10-8-1993 passed by the Principal District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad, whereunder he had awarded a global compensation of Rs. 64,600/- on the death of a girl-child aged about 10 to 11 years.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri D. Vijayakumar. The respondents having been served with notices have remained absent before this Court. I have also perused the case records.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant while taking me through the facts of the case and the impugned judgment and award argued that the global compensation of Rs. 64,600/-awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal due to the death of the girl-child aged about 11 years was totally on the high side. It is also argued by him that a child who admittedly was 11 years could not be ta...
The Traffic Manager, New Mangalore Port Vs. Mrs. B. Radha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR796]; ILR1998KAR1964
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is filed challenging the correctness of the order dated 30th of May 1995 made in Case No. W.C.A.CR.6/FC.87-88 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Labour Officer, Dakshina Kannada Sub-Division-ll, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), by the Traffic Manager, New Mangalore Port Trust Registered Cargo Handling Workers' Administration Wing, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the port Trust').2. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be set out as hereunder:(a) One Thangappan, who was working as a Shore Worker in the employment of the New Mangalore Port, Mangalore, drowned to death at 21.30 hours within the New Mangalore Port, while he was engaged in unloading timber from one of the ships berthed at the said New Mangalore Port. The first respondent, who is the widow, and respondents 2 to 4, who are the children, of the said Thangappan, filed an application before the...
Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1998
Reported in: [1998(79)FLR465]; (1998)ILLJ834Kant
ORDERG. Patri Basavana Goud, J. 1. Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited (TAFE) a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and a share holder of the said company Sri. A. Shivashilam, have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Karnataka, Union of India, and the President of TAFE Employees Union, questioning the constitutional validity of Sections 34, 25T and U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act' for short) and of Schedule-V to the said Act, and also seek quashing of Annexure-C dated September 10, 1996, by which the 1st respondent-State of Karnataka accorded permission under Section 34 of the Act to the 3rd respondent-President of the TAFE Employees' Union, to prosecute the management of TAFE for the offence of committing unfair labour practices.2. Schedule-V to the Act lists unfair labour practices. Section 25T prohibits any employer, workmen or a Trade Union from committing any unfair labour practice. Section 25U imposes ...
Soumya Navit Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-01-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1466
ORDER1. Heard Sri K. Venkataraman holding brief of Sri S.N. Hatti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the quashing of proceeding Special Case No. 16 of 1997, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore based on the complaint made by Lokayukta.3. It is well-settled principle of law that under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the power under the said Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is to be exercised very sparingly and only in the cases where from the prima facie reading of the FIR, or complaint and the allegations made therein taken on their face value or if established, do not disclose or make out any offence, or that the FIR, or complaint is frivolous, vexatious, the FIR, or complaint may be quashed. That if the allegations, FIR, or complaint prima facie are not shown to be making out the case amounting to offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›