Karnataka Court February 1998 Judgments

Puttegowda Vs. Thimmajamma and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR1730; 1998(3)KarLJ405

1. The appellant-plaintiff has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 14-11-1991 passed in R.A. No. 49 of 1990 by the Civil Judge, Hunsur, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23-6-1990 passed by the Munsiff, K.R. Nagar, in O.S. No. 137 of 1983.2. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. Plaintiff Puttegowda (present appellant), second defendant Ramegowda (present respondent 2), third defendant Chikkegowda (present respondent 3) and 9 daughters of whom fourth defendant Kalamma is one of the daughters are the children of one Chikkegowda who died on 23-3-1981. On 11-11-1965 the present appellant-plaintiff executed a registered release deed Ex. D-1 after taking his share. Third defendant Chikkegowda also executed the release deed Ex. D-2 after taking his share. Father Chikkegowda bad a share in the suit properties....

The General Manager, Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1998Kant354; ILR1998KAR2946; 1998(3)KarLJ527

ORDER1. The petitioner is a Co-operative Society established under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, hereinafter called 'the Act'. It was appointed as a sub-agent of the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, hereinafter called the 'KFCSC' for the purposes of procurement, storage, hulling and delivery of foodgrains and holding paddy stock for and on behalf of KFCSC. Whereas the petitioner, though having his own Rice 'Mill since required to hull the paddy in stock in private mills for rice delivery, due to urgency of rice required by the KFCSC, entered into an agreement dated March 17, 1984 with the 3rd respondent appointing him a Milling Agent for the purposes of hulling paddy and to deliver the resultant rice, subject to certain terms and conditions.2. That, according to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the 3rd respondent furnished a bank guarantee to the petitioner to an extent of Rs. 1 lakh; and, agreed to convert the paddy o...

Bapuji Education Society, Tumkur Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ155

R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Notification dated 28-7-1987 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 29-10-1987 issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'Act') along with notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was quashed by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned in this appeal solely on the ground of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act having been published after the statutory period provided under clause (i) of Section 6(1) of the Act. The order of the learned Single Judge is stated to be against the provisions of law, the scheme of the Act and the mandate of the Supreme Court in Khadim Hussain v State of Uttar Pradesh.2. While dealing with the scope, purpose and object of the publications contemplated under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore v State of Karnataka, has held:'The purpose and object of publication of the notifications under Sections 4 and...

Abdul Haleem Vs. Kalique Ahmed (Deceased) by L.Rs

Court: Karnataka

1. In the memo it has been stated that the matter has been settled out of Court. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed as settled between the parties. It has further been stated that half of the Court fee may be ordered to be refunded to the appellant. The provisions of Court fee Act namely Section 66 of the Karnataka Court fee Act provides for refund on settlement before hearing. Section 66 material portion reads as under:--'Whenever by agreement of the parties- (a) ........................... (b) ........................... (c) if any appeal is disposed of before commencing of hearing of said appeal, half of the amount of fees paid in respect of the claim or claims in suit or in appeal shall be ordered by the Court to be refunded to the parties by whom the same have been respectively paid'. Learned Counsel submitted before me that 50% of the Court fee therefore has to be directed to be refunded. Section 66, no doubt, provides for refund of the fee on settlement of the matter before hear...

Marigowda and Another Vs. State by Doddaballapura Rural Police

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)518; 1998CriLJ1864; 1998(3)KarLJ39

ORDER1. The petitioners face grave charges for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 446, 427, 506, 307, 324, 326, 302, Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. The prosecution case is that on 8-7-1996 at about 6.30 a.m. the complainant lodged a complaint with the policeSub-Inspector of Doddaballapura Rural Police, alleging that there was an ill-will between Ex-Chairman (A-11) and the deceased, as a result of which, there was some altercations. Following the altercations, the case of the prosecution is that all the accused assaulted the deceased and C.Ws. 2, 10, 11, 14 and 16.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. H.V. Subramanya, raised the following points: He submitted that the petitioners have been in custody for one year and seven months. He further submitted that even to this day, the case has not been committed to the Sessions Court. There were forty adjournments and in spite of it, the case has not been committed so far.4. Learned Counsel for the...

M/S. New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Hanumanthappa ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ353

Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147(1);Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 4Case Referred:Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Hanumanthappa and Another, 1992(2) Kar. L.J. 183, ILR 1992 Kar. 1335JUDGEMENT1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 16-10-1993 in MVC No. 599 of 1990 passed by the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chitradurga, in passing whereof, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 65,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. as against the appellant-Insurance Company and the respondent 7-owner, the liability being joint and several.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri K. Suryanarayana Rao and Sri B.M. Siddappa appearing for the respondents 1 to 6. The respondent 7 is represented by Sri N.D. Jayadevappa. I have also perused the case records.3. The short point for my consideration in the instant appeal is whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Mo...

New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Sanganna Gowda Chan ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ155

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30-7-1993 in case No. WCA. SR. 132/92 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bijapur. In passing the same, the said Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had awarded a sum of Rs. 48,398/- together with interest at 6% p.a. to the respondent 2. 2. I heard the learned Counsel Sri P.C. Ajjappa appearing along with Sri Kaleemullah Shariff for the contesting respondent 2. The respondent 1 is represented by Sri B.S. Patil. I have also perused the records of thecase. 3. The facts of the case are as hereunder: That one Malakawwa, aged about 33 years, wife of the respondent 2-claimant died in a road accident caused by the tractor-trailor bearing registration No. KA-28 1989-90 owned by the respondent 1 herein. The appellant-Insurance Company is the Company which had insured the vehicle in question. Consequent on the death of the said Malakawwa, the respondent 2-claimant, her husband filed a claim peti...

Mangalore Tourist Service, Mangalore Vs. B. Ramanna and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000ACJ679; ILR1999KAR821; 1999(6)KarLJ318

1. The appellant is the owner of the tourist car bearing No. CRX 8537. The II respondent is the insurer. The first respondent and the otherpersons were travelling in the said car. It met with an accident on 22-5-1989. In all there were 9 petitions before the MACT, Bangalore Rural District arising out of this accident. The Tribunal has awarded as follows.-Sl. No.MVC No.Award amount (Rs.)1.851/892,99,0002.813/8930,0003.812/8930,0004.811/8920,0005.853/8915,0006.814/8910,0007.852/895,0008.815/891,0009.816/891,000The Tribunal has held that the Insurance Company is liable in MVC Nos. 811 to 815 of 1989. For others it is held that the owner is liable. Being aggrieved by this the appellant-owner has preferred this appeal.2. Mr. S.A. Nazeer, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company is liable to make good the compensation for 5 passengers and the Tribunal ought to have chosen such of the petitioners for whom the higher compensation was awarded. On the other hand, Mr. ...

State of Karnataka Vs. Dodda Hanumantha and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999CriLJ658

M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The State of Karnataka has assailed the order of acquittal recorded in favour of 8 accused in S. C. No. 26/90 by the learned Sessions Judge, Raichur on 18-9-1992 through the present appeal.2. The allegation against the accused was that on the morning of 13-10-1989 at about 8 A. M. in Sy. No. 248 at Village Vaddepalli, that the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and that they had caused the death of one Rangappa. The accused were charged with having committed offences punishable Under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 506 and 302 r/w 149, I.P.C. The ancillary charge was that in the cause of this incident the accused had assaulted P.Ws. 1 to 3 and caused certain injuries to them. The learned trial Judge after a detail analysis of the evidence, acquitted all the eight accused, principally on the ground that it was not possible to hold that the charges were established because of the various infirmities in the evidence, but the principal ground was tha...