Karnataka Court May 1998 Judgments
Jotiba Ningappa Patil Vs. the Competent Authority, Belgaum Urban Agglo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ485
ORDER1. Heard Smt. Latha Prasad holding brief for Sri Ananta Mandagi, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Ramakrishna, learned High Court Government Pleader.2. The petitioner has challenged by this petition the order of acquisition of his land viz,, the order dated 19-8-1980 (Annexure-E) to the writ petition as well as the order dated 20-1-1994 (Annexure-G) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division in Appeal under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ('the Act', for short).3. The petitioner's case is that respondent 1 declared the petitioner's land as excess and passed the order impugned without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter and passed the order impugned viz., order dated 19-8-1980 in case No. RB/ULC/D/SR/2560 and the order is illegal being breach of Section 42 of the Act and Rule 5 thereto.4. Learned Counsel contended that in accordance with these provisions service of personal notice is mandatory...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Anusha Vs. K. Shankar Raman
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2131; 1998(4)KarLJ288
ORDER1. These revisions arise out of the interlocutory orders of the Family Court, Bangalore. In view of the preliminary objections raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the short question that arises for consideration in these revisions is whether a revision lies to this Court under Section 115, CPC against the interlocutory orders passed by the Family Court.2. The Family Courts in the State of Karnataka were established by Government of Karnataka after consultation with the High Court of Karnataka for the purpose of deciding cases filed within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The Law Commission in its 59th report (1974) had also stressed in dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976 to provide for a special procedure to b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Achamma and Another Vs. H. Dhanaraj Singh and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant318; ILR1998KAR2512; 1998(4)KarLJ318
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Trial Judge in I.A. No. VI in O.S. No. 69 of 1989, dated 20-9-1983 urging the following grounds:The learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the relief of declaration of the title of the petitioner-plaintiffs for consideration of possession andmesne profits in respect of the properties, both lands and houses described in the schedule thereto and the Court fee payable under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (in short 'the Act') has been correctly paid for the said reliefs. As such there could be no occasion for demanding further Court fee on the adjustment of the relief by the parties and pertaining to the subject-matter of the suit.2. The Trial Judge has further failed to appreciate and consider that the relief sought for and the payment of Court fee on the said relief are in conformity with the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable...
Tag this Judgment!Grasim Industries Limited, Kumarapatnam, Dharwad District Vs. Hanumant ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2753; 1998(4)KarLJ411
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24-10-1994 passed by the Principal District Judge, Dharwad in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 261 of 1990. By the said order the learned Dist :ct Judge, held that the claimants-respondents 1(a), (b) and (c) are not only entitled to all the benefits under the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act but also would be entitled to 12 per centum per annum on the market value of the land acquired for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of notice under Section 4(1) to the date of the award of the Collector or to the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier as per Section 23(1-A). The learned Appellate Judge held that this was omitted by the Trial Court while passing the award,2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether any award that is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer before 30th of April, 1982 the claimants would be entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Ac...
Tag this Judgment!M/s. Panyam Cements and Minerals Industries Limited, Wire Division, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: [1998(80)FLR976]; ILR1999KAR226
ORDER1. Petitioner-employer, in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeks quashing of the award of the second respondent Industrial Tribunal dated 16-8-1994 at Annexure-A, insofar as it holds strike by the members of the first respondent Employees' Association-Workmen of the petitioner establishment-from 12-8-1982 to 31-8-1982, as justified, and insofar as it holds the workmen entitled to wages for the said period. 2. The erstwhile Deccan Wires Limited (Wire Division) had been manufacturing sophisticated high carbon steel wires, going into production in the year 1976. It suffered loss, and it was amalgamated with the petitioner M/s. Panyam Cements and Minerals Industries Limited with effect from 31-5-1980, After amalgamation, the erstwhile Deccan Wires at Bangalore is referred to as the Wire Division. M/s. Panyam Cements had units in Karnool and Bellary Districts also. While the management paid bonus at 20% in 1979-80 and 16% in 1980-81 to the workmen of ...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Krishna Murthy Vs. S.V. Hadimani and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2419; 1998(5)KarLJ621
ORDER1. A domestic dispute involving the mother and children, which should have been settled amicably, reached first the portals of the Court, then travelled through to the lock-up in the Police Station and sub-jail and has now reached this Court.2. The petitioner is the son of the 2nd respondent and the brother of the 3rd respondent. He resides, according to him, along with his wife and three children, the eldest being 20 years, in the building at No. 227, I Floor, 53rd Cross, VI Main, IV Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent also resides in the same premises along with her mentally retarded child. The 3rd respondent is a married daughter and has taken up residence along with the 2nd respondent, which, according to the 3rd respondent, is intended 'to lend moral support' to her.3. The petitioner alleges that on 31-8-1997, the petitioner, his wife and two of his sons were summoned to the Police Station by the 4th respondent by deputing two plain clothes police me...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, Madikeri and Others Vs. Robe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2850; 1998(6)KarLJ78
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Kodagu District assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent applied for conversion of land in S. No. 42-A in Block No. 17 of Madikeri Town Municipal Council and to make necessary changes in the revenue records as well as the municipal records. On 21-6-1991 before the first appellant herein, it was transferred to second respondent for consideration. The respondent filed an application on 21-6-1991 for conversion of the land to non-agricultural use by affixing Rs. 2/- stamp. On 3-7-1991 the application was forwarded to the Revenue Inspector for recovering the remaining stamp duty. The records show that by 21-10-1991 the respondent had not paid the deficit stamp duty and he paid the stamp duty afterwards. On 17-1-1992 the respondent was examined. The respondent filed a statement wherein he stated that he will file the required documents at the relevant time. ...
Tag this Judgment!Naganagouda Gowdappa Gouda Patil (Deceased) by L.Rs and Another Vs. St ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ176
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioners assailing the judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition dated 31-7-1996. The facts of the case are that Gowdappa Gouda was having a wife and two sons. He died earlier to the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Therefore the two sons and his wife, that is the mother of the two sons, succeeded to the property. The entries were made in the revenue records tentatively, some of the properties being entered in the name of each member. They have filed a declaration under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (herein afterwards referred to as 'the Act' for short) showing that they own 6 acres 32 guntas of land. The Land Reforms Tribunal has ordered that each major son is entitled to retain ten units and held that the mother is entitled to only two units. Ten unit conies to 54 acres or equivalent to that extent. Aggrieved by that, the appellants filed a writ petition. The Single Judge, after ...
Tag this Judgment!Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3331; 1998(6)KarLJ99
ORDER1. The allegations contained in these writ petitions in brief are as follows:The 2nd respondent issued Annexure-A notification under Rule 31-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, notifying the particulars of the land intended to be granted by tender-cum-auction to intending bidders. The last date of auction was 23-9-1995. The petitioner, being interested in item No. 1 in Annexure-A, made an offer of Rs. 60.10 lakhs with respect to Sl. No. 1 therein. Detailed description of Sl. No. 1 was provided specifying the minor mineral, total area and the specific boundaries. The said bid was the highest. As required, the petitioner had deposited Rs. 6,30,000/- byway of earnest money. The petitioner's bid was accepted and he deposited the balance amount of Rs. 53,80,000/- within the period prescribed. As per communication dated 13-11-1995, the tender-cum-auction was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent called upon t...
Tag this Judgment!Saicoir Consumer Products (P.) Ltd. Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1998
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas166(Kar); ILR1998KAR2614
V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioner had borrowed from the first respondent a sum of Rs. 59,35,000 hypothecating the land, building and machinery situate at plot No. 498, IV floor, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore. It is seen that the loan was sanctioned on October 6, 1988. The petitioner, thereafter, defaulted the repayment. Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on June 28, 1991, by the first respondent to show cause why proceedings under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act should not be invoked. As the petitioner did not co-operate and discharge the arrears, on August 1, 1991, the first respondent repossessed the land, building and the machinery, It, thereafter, notified the mortgage property for sale in the advertisement dated November 10, 1991. At the sale held, after negotiation on January 22, 1992 (with different offerees), the second respondent purchased the machinery for Rs. 25 lakhs whereas the third respondent agreed to purchase the land and building...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »