Karnataka Court March 1998 Judgments

Smt. Lakshamma Vs. M.P. Krishnappa and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ536

1. The first plaintiff is the appellant and second plaintiff is made one of the respondents. The suit for injunction in respect of the vacant site measuring 30' x 30' at Muthkur Village, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, as Khata No. 183, was partly decreed by the Trial Court, from interfering with the first plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property alone by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court though held that the possession of the schedule property with the plaintiff is proved, holding that no interference has been caused by the defendant, the appeal was allowed and the decree granted by the Trial Court was set aside. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court in this second appeal.2. This second appeal has been admitted on the following question of law.-'Whether the lower Appellate Court has judiciously exercised the discretion vested in it in refusing to grant the relief of permanent injunction to the appellant'?3. Once the Appellate Court finds the p...

Lalitha Kunder Vs. Syndicate Bank, Surathkal Branch, Dakshina Kannada ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ694

1. The petitioner in Miscellaneous Case No. 171 of 1980 succeeded before the Trial Court in raising the attachment over the property on the ground that the property has been transferred even prior to the decree being passed in that suit. The Lower Court accepted the petitioner and raised attachment while the Appellate Court reversed it holding that the attachment is valid. Hence the petitioner is before me in this second appeal.2. The admitted facts are that there was a settlement in favour of the petitioner on 1-9-1978. But the decree was passed on 19-10-1978 against the settlors. The attachment was made long after the decree. Therefore, the question is whether the settlement was made with a view to defeat the realisation of the decree the plaintiff obtained against the settlors.3. The learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision in C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb v Arji Papa Rao (deceased) by L.Rs. and Others, to the effect that Section 53(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1...

B.M. Pakkala Vs. the Management of M/S. Vijaya Bank, Zonal Office, Kod ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ625

ORDER1. An officer of the respondent Vijaya Bank is before this Court aggrieved by the orders made by the Appellate Authority dated 17-9-1991 in confirming the orders made by the Disciplinary Authority dated 27-12-1990. By the said order the Disciplinary Authority imposed certain punishments as provided under C and D Regulations of the Bank.2. Briefly the background facts are:While working as Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank, petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 6-2-1989. In that it was alleged that while working as an officer at various branches of the Bank in Bangalore, as a Branch Manager in Keshavapura Branch, Hobli and at West Maredpally Branch, Secunderabad between the period 15-4-1980 and 24-2-1987, petitioner had committed grave official misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant, inasmuch as, he had amassed wealth disproportionate to all his known sources of income by corrupt and or...

M. Ramachandra Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Bangalore D ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ464

ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15th September, 1997, passed by Smt. Shoba Nambisan, Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, whereby, the Divisional Commissioner has dismissed the Revision No. MUN(1) CR. 68 of 1996-97, filed by the petitioner and has maintained the order of the Competent Authority dated 3rd October, 1996.The petitioner has sought the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order passed by the 3rd respondent, namely, the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, in Case No. MUN(1) CR. 68 of 1996-97, dated 15-9-1997, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-A. Petitioner has further sought the relief of writ of mandamus or writ order in the nature of writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to the petition, namely, Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Bangalore Development Authority, as well as the Screening Committee of the Bangalore District represented by the Commissioner of the B.D.A., Bangalor...

S. Suryanarayana Setty and Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(4)KarLJ646

ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners' prayer is for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Bangalore Development Authority to reconvey in their favour revenue sites purchased by them pursuant to the applications filed by them as per Annexures-A, N, W and AM after complying with the formalities and if, those very sites cannot be reconveyed, it may be directed that respondents may allot to the petitioners any other alternative sites of any dimensions in its layout at the same rate for which the other sites were reconveyed to others. It has also been prayed by the petitioners that respondent-authority be directed to pay each petitioner as compensation and damage a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, for unreasonable delay caused, for not reconveying and allotting the sites, within reasonable time as authority allotted other revenue sites in Sy. No. 5 of Saneguruvanahalli, and to grant such further relief. 2. The petitioner's case has been that petitioner 1, by the regi...

B.L. Jayakumar Vs. the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transpo ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(1999)ACC522; 1999ACJ970; ILR1999KAR1230; 1998(5)KarLJ252

1. This is a claimant's appeal to challenge the judgment and award dated 11-2-1992 in M.V.C. No. 1591 of 1988 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal VIII, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the MACT for short). In passing the same, as against the claim of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the MACT had awarded a global compensation of Rs. 42,500/-together with interest at 6% p.a. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant while taking me through the facts of the case and further the impugned judgment, argued that in passing the impugned judgment, the MACT had awarded in all a sum of Rs. 42,500/- under the following heads. (i) General damages: Rs. 35,000/- (ii) Medical expenses: Rs. 3,000/- (iii) Conveyance and nourishment: Rs. 1,500/- (iv) For loss of studies for one year: Rs. 3,000/-3. It is submitted by Sri Subramanya that the award of compensation under the head 'general damages' to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- is on the lower side, particularly when the appellant before the MACT claimed that he w...

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs. C.B.C.i. Society for Medical E ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR2021

S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. The findings of the learned Single Judge in respect of applicability of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act to the B.D.A. proceedings has been mainly challenged in this appeal by the Bangalore Development Authority.2. The brief facts necessary for consideration are as follows:-Respondent No. 1 is a Society and respondent No. 2 is the Hospital run fey it. The land in dispute Sy.No.80 measuring 10 acres of Tavare kerel village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluka belongs to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. For the formation and implementation of Byrasandra Thavarakere Madivala Scheme (B.T.M.) under a preliminary notification dated 19.9.1977 under Section 17(1) & (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (B.D.Act for short), the said land was proposed for acquisition by the B.D.A. Pursuant to this, final notification under Section 19(1) of the B.D.A. Act is issued on 7.2.1978. Though no objections were filed by respondent Nos. 1. and 2, on receipt of notices u...

B.M. Pakkala Vs. the Management of Vijaya Bank and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR3817

ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. An Officer of the Respondent-Vijaya Bank is before this Court aggrieved by the orders made by the Appellate Authority dt.17.9.91 in confirming the orders made by the Disciplinary Authority dt.27.12.90. By the said order the Disciplinary Authority imposed certain punishments as provided under C & D Regulations of the Bank.2. Briefly the background facts are:While working as Branch Manager of the respondent Bank, petitioner was served with a charge memo dt.6.2.89. In that it was alleged that while working as an Officer at various branches of the Bank in Bangalore, as a Branch Manager in Keshavapura Branch, Hobli and at West Maredpaly Branch, Secunderabad between the period 15.4.1980 and 24.2.1987, petitioner has committed grave official misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant, in as much as, he had amassed wealth disproportionate to all his known sources of income by corrupt and or ...

Deepchand (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Amina Bai Alias Aminabiyamma (Decease ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner/plaintiff/appellants in R.S.A. No. 849 of 1979 are the petitioner in the above civil petition. The second appeal whose judgment is sought to be reviewed arose out of a suit for redemption which was dismissed by the Trial Court and which dismissal was confirmed by the First Appellate Court and this Court in the second appeal.2. The reason for dismissal by the Courts below is that there is no identity of the mortgaged property. This Court observed as follows:--'The materials placed on record not being satisfactory to establish the identity of the mortgaged property, this Court regrets its inability to give effective relief to the appellant. It is to be noted that the suit for redemption was filed in the year 1968 and has been pending in one Court or the other during the last twenty-five years and during this period it was remanded on two occasions by this Court to enable the appellant to place additional evidence on record as requested by him. Even after 25 years, this ...

Nanjundaiah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR2776; 1998(3)KarLJ382

ORDER1. The petitioners are the owners of the land measuring 1 acre 6 guntas in Survey No. 56574 of Malavalli Village, Mandya District. The Deputy Commissioner-2nd respondent issued a notification dated 9-3-1990 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act') proposing to acquire the land for a public purpose i.e., for construction of Primary School. This notification is under challenge in this writ petition.2. Sri Mohandas N. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notification issued by the D.C., under Section 4(1) of the LA Act, is without jurisdiction in view of Act 68 of 1984. It is in his submission that after coming into force of the Act 68 of 1984, only the appropriate Government is authorised to issue notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act. It is further submitted that the provisions of Act 17 of 1961 (State Act) are repugnant to the provisions of Act 68 of 1984 (Central Act) and therefore Act 17 of 1961 is ...