Karnataka Court February 1998 Judgments
B.N. Jayanth Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant215; ILR1998KAR2081; 1998(3)KarLJ19
ORDER1. Whether the Government, in exercise of its power under Section 121 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, hereinafter called 'the Act', may extend the benefit of exemption to any Co-operative Society from any provision of the Act, to enable an individual to continue in the office, contrary to the spirit behind the restriction imposed by the statutory provision? is the question that falls for consideration in both these petitions. They are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. The facts are not in dispute in these cases and they are asfollows:The petitioner in the first petition is stated to be an elected Director on the Committee of Management of respondent 5. The 3rd respondent is the president of the 5th respondent society from 10-4-1991. Under Section 29D of the Act, no person shall be eligible for election or appointment or to continue as President, Vice-President, Managing Director, Treasurer or Secretary of a Co-operative Society for more than six ye...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimhasetty (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Padmasetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant389; ILR1998KAR3230; 1998(3)KarLJ73
1. The present second appeal has been placed before this Full Bench under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, since the learned Single Judge, before whom the appeal was placed for hearing, has doubted the correctness of the law laid down by the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of A. Kareem Baig and Others v Dr. Mohammad Khizar Hussain, K. Guru Rao vM. Subba Rao and M. Azmathulla Khan (dead) by L.Rs vThankamma Mathews. In the said decisions, it has been held that once the remedy by way of suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of an immovable property becomes barred by limitation as provided under the Limitation Act, then even the statutory right of the transferee, as given under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short 'the Act'), to defend the possession over the property taken or continued under the said contract as granted is lost, destroyed or gets extinguished.Facts2. This is defendants' second appeal. The plaintiff/respondent had f...
Tag this Judgment!Siddappa Hanumanthappa Kori Vs. the Assistant Director of Land Records ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1834; 1998(3)KarLJ581
ORDER1. The order dated 2-6-1997 is recalled.2. The matter was heard afresh at the instance of the parties.3. The petitioner herein questioned by way of an Appeal No. 28 of 1995, before the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum, the orders dated 10-11-1992 and 8-8-1994 and sought cancellation of the mutation entry 2693 pertaining to Survey No. 166 of Mannikeri Village, Bilagi Taluk, Bijapur District.4. The grievance was that the Assistant Director of the Land Records, Jamkhandi had amalgamated Survey Nos. 166/1 and 166/2 and further sub-divided it as 166/1+2a and 166/1+2b. Various grounds were raised by the petitioner herein against the order of the Assistant Director of Land Records. The first appeal under Section 49(f) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the Act of 1964) was filed before the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum. The Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum as per Annexure-B allowed the appeal and the subdivision measurement i.e., P.T. Shee...
Tag this Judgment!C.C. Devasia Vs. the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2473; 1998(3)KarLJ427
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the first and third respondents and has prayed for quashing of those orders.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition is that an extent of 1-12 acres in Sy. No. 26/1C and 1-69 acres in Sy. No. 26/1B situated in Bilinele village were granted in favour of one Sri Devadanam Upadeshi under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner claims to be a legatee under a Will dated 27-11-1985 executed by late Devadanam Upadeshi, who secured the occupancy right from the Land Tribunal. The Tahsildarmade a report to the third respondent about the petitioner being in possession of the land as a legatee under the Will and recommended forfeiture of the land for violation of the conditions provided under Section 61 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner, passed the order forfeiting the lands to the state under the ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shashidhara Rao Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant294; 1998(3)KarLJ488
ORDER1. A youth in his prime suffered by inhuman acts of the authorities, screams with a silent prayer God, God! What solace hath thou. Since his prayers were not answered, he with total resentment and frustration knocks at the doors of this Court for justice. Cases like this are innumerable but the authorities who are charged with the duty of looking after the welfare of these students act insensitively and in total violation of norms but who is to be blamed? A blase public that has shrugged off this hideous mincing of youth in his prime, a seasoned killer like respondent institute or the University which is insensitive to this human issue. When a gentle lad is neatly chopped and packed in boxes to be thrown overboard piece meal, the University shrugs off and leaves the loved ones in the hands that held him close, cradled him and crooned lullaby to heal this raw wound. Who is the villain of this saga? Is it the college or the University? In my view both, but my hands are tied with pre...
Tag this Judgment!Kallavva Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2497; 1999(3)KarLJ564
ORDER1. Pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant is the view of the Supreme Court. Since this right is frustrated and her claim is rejected by the State Government by their impugned order dated 11-10-1989, a retired old lady, who has abundant richness in her poverty is before this Court questioning the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid order.2. Brief reference may be made to the circumstances leading up to passing of the impugned order referred to above in order to appreciate the circumstances under which the impugned order came to be made as well as ground of attack levelled against the said order.3. Petitioner was initially appointed as a scavenger in the Town Panchayat, Chikodi. In the service registers her date of birth is noted as 27-4-1913. She ought to have retired from service on 27-4-1968, on attaining the age of superannuation bu...
Tag this Judgment!Vasavadatta Cements, Sedam Taluk, Gulbarga District Vs. Karnataka Elec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ417
ORDER1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of cement in a unit set up by it in Sedam in Gulbarga District. In connection with the said unit, it has obtained from the respondent-Board a High Tension Power connection. In terms of Power Tariff, 1990 introduced with effect from the first meter reading date on or after 6-9-1990 'Power Factor Bonus' and High Voltage Rebate admissible to such units earlier were withdrawn qua units that had already availed of the said benefits for a period of five years. General conditions l(h) and (i) of the said Tariff which are relevant in this connection read as under.-1(h) Power Factor (PF).--(i) In the event of the PF recorded or calculated goes below 0.85 lag, a surcharge of 1 per unit consumed will be levied for every reduction of PF by 0.01 below 0.85 lag. (ii) Rounding off of PF shall be regulated as per Regulation 25.00 of ESR 1988. (iii) There will be no rebate for PF above 0.85 lag. 1(i) Rebate for Supply at Voltages -- 33KV and above: I...
Tag this Judgment!Rama K. Kunder Vs. the 15th Land Tribunal, Udupi Taluk and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)KarLJ71
ORDER1. This civil petition has been filed after a lapse of 4,988 days for review and recalling of the order dated 21-9-1982 passed in Writ Petition No. 31507 of 1981.2. The plea taken is that though the petitioner herein was the third respondent in the said writ petition but the was not heard. The judgment of this Court reveals that one M.R. Manjappa, Advocate, had appeared on his behalf. The plea taken is that the petitioners had not instructed the said lawyer to appear on his behalf.3. In my opinion after a lapse of more than sixteen years now it is difficult to'ascertain the truthfulness of the said allegation The Supreme Court in M/s. Tilokchand Motichand and Others v H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay and Another, has quoted with approval the following passage from Halsbury's Laws of England (Third Edition, Vol. 24, Article 330) supporting the public policy behind the statute of limitations.-'The Courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the ex...
Tag this Judgment!B.R. Manjegowda Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)KarLJ68
ORDER1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 27-2-1997 passed by the Land Tribunal, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, granting occupancy right in favour of one B.M. Siddegowda (third respondent) in preference to the petitioner who had also made a similar claim. The Tribunal has purported to pass the order under the provisions of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') as amended by the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979.2. Earlier to the Amendment Act 26 of 1979 the power of adjudication of occupancy claims were given to the Deputy Commissioners as provided under Section 9 of the Principal Act, but by the above Amendment Act, the said power was vested in the Land Tribunal.3. But subsequently this Court in its order dated 24-4-1992, i.e., Shri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam, Kudli v State of Karnataka , has held that:'Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979, Sections 3(9) and 4(2) -- Myso...
Tag this Judgment!Fellix-joannas Vs. State by Doddapete Police Station, Shimoga
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)105; 1998CriLJ2479; ILR1998KAR2059; 1998(3)KarLJ218
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. The appellant-accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25-2-1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga in S.C. No. 33 of 1993 convicting the appellant-accused of the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case, briefly is, as follows.-Marry alias Asha (deceased) was the younger sister of Francis Rodrigues-P.W. 2 of Sagar. Her father had expired and the family depended upon Francis Rodrigues, being the eldest son of the family. He performed the marriage of the deceased with the accused-Fellix-Joannas on 16-10-1991. The accused started telling the deceased that he wanted to search for a job abroad. In that regard the deceased and accused visited Bombay, some times in the early part of 1992. After coming back from Bombay, the accused asked the deceased to arrange through her brother Rs. 10,000/- for visa and passport. Marry was feeling very delicate to ask her brother F...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »