Karnataka Court July 1998 Judgments
M/S. Kamadhenu Financiers and Traders (Registered), Hassan Vs. Kum. N. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ154
ORDER1. Heard Sri O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.2. This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 31-5-1994 passed by Sri Basavaraj Patil, Civil Judge, Hassan, on an application for amendment or correction in the cause-title of the plaint. In the plaint, there was a wrong description of the defendant 1. The suit was filed against Kamadhenu Credit Corporation. But, according to the plaintiff, it was typed as Kamadhenu Financier and Traders. Plaintiff moved an application for correction and amendment in the cause-title and also asserted that this mistake has crept in the description of the defendant 1 on account of bona fide mistake and inadvertence. Therefore, he may be allowed to correct the description of defendant 1 as Kamadhenu Credit Corporation instead of Kamadhenu Financier and Traders. The defendant objected to the application on the ground that it amounts to changing the nature of the case. The Court below considered the affidavit and t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Nimbamma Vs. Smt. Rathnamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: I(2000)DMC579; 1999(5)KarLJ19
ORDER1. This revision petition has been listed along with the application for stay. I have heard Sri Jayaprakash Reddy, holding brief for Sri Jai Kumar Patil, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri S.V. Prakash, learned Counsel for respondent 2, on the merits of revision and do dispose it off.2. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the judgment and order dated 11th December, 1997 delivered by C.Y. Brahmagoudar, Principal District Judge, Shimoga in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 1993 affirming the judgment and order of Sri C.S. Malagi, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sagar in P and SC 4/91, dated 9-3-1993. The respondent in the revision filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act in the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Sagar for grant of succession certificate claiming herself to be a legally wedded wife of deceased Shekaraiah, S/o Murugaiah who was working as Gangman in the Railway Department and...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Anantha Swamy and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3089; 1998(5)KarLJ480
ORDER1. This group of writ petitions raises just one point namely the question as to whether the Land Tribunal at Bangalore which is hearing the cases was justified in passing the order dated 30-6-1998 refusing to transfer the pending applications to the Special Deputy Commissioner and insisting on going on with the cases. The reason why there are about 20 writ petitions is because there are that many applicants. A contention was raised before the Tribunal by the petitioners to the effect that since the lands in question were originally inam lands that the designated authority under law who is empowered to hear and decide the applications is the Special Deputy Commissioner and not the Land Tribunal. The respondents who are the applicants and the land owner etc. pointed out to the Tribunal that this litigation has had a long history and that even on the last occasion when the case came up to the High Court by way of W.P. No. 26983 of 1997 that my brother Vishwanath, J., through order da...
Tag this Judgment!Naveen Kumar and Others Vs. State by Circle Inspector of Police, Udupi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)343; 1998(5)KarLJ596
ORDER1. The important question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the second complaint filed under Section 200, Cr. P.C. is maintainable when the 'B' Report was accepted by the Court without there being a protest petition.2. Heard.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second complaint is not maintainable as the 'B' Summary Report submitted by the police was accepted by the Court as the respondent failed to file any protest petition before the 'B' Summary Report was accepted by the Court. He further contended that the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the 'B' Summary Report was confirmed by the High Court in the revision petition. The respondent filed the second private complaint on the same allegations as made in the earlier complaint before the same Court suppressing the fact that the revision petition was filed before the Court which subsequently came to be rejected and the learned Magistrate has directed the police to inv...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Gowramma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ702
ORDER1. Heard.2. It is not in dispute that the land measuring S acres bearing Sy. No. 305 of Doddaullarthi Village, Challakere Taluk of Chitradurga District had been granted under dharkhast to the husband of respondent 5, named Erappa since deceased under relevant Land Grant Rules. It is also not in dispute that the grantee Erappa was a member belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. The grant was subject to non-alienation condition prohibiting transfer thereof for a period of 15 years. But, the granted land was sold by the grantee Erappa on 4-2-1971 to one Smt. Venkatamma. On 21-2-1990, the said land was jointly purchased by the petitioner and respondent 4, Smt. Kariyamma.3. Thereafter, an application was made by respondent 5, wife of the deceased grantee before respondent 3-Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the said land under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short). Then, the enqu...
Tag this Judgment!K. Munishamappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ221
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. Noticing the conflict of opinion between two Single Bench judgments of this Court in Boregowda v Special Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga and Others and S. Billigowda v Deputy Commissioner, Mandya and Others, regarding the ambit, scope and interpretation of Rule 5(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1985 (for short, 'the Rules'). The learned Single Judge has referred the following question of law for the consideration of the Larger Bench:'Whether under Rule 5(2) of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979, it has been open or not to the Appellate Authority, that is, the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss the appeal on merits or whether only course open and available was either to adjourn the appeal or to dismiss for default only?'2. Respondents 1 to 3 have no interest in the lis as they are statutory authorities. Respondents 4 to 6, the pri...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Dhanalakshmi and Another Vs. the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR269; 1998(6)KarLJ603; (1999)ILLJ1018Kant
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J., 1. Whether the legal heirs of a deceased workman can initiate and prosecute an industrial dispute? is a question of law sought to be adjudicated in these petitions referred to the Division Bench by an order of the learned Single Judge dated 4-12-1996.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the workmen relying upon the judgment of this Court in Prema v Management, Hulkal Group Service Co-operative Society Limited, has submitted that the principle laid down therein can further be stretched enabling the legal heirs of the deceased workman to initiate conciliation proceedings notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10(8) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), which has been pressed into service by the employer for submitting that it restricted the rights of the legal heirs to the extents specified therein.3. The Act is admittedly a social welfare legislation enacted for the purposes of industrial peace by protecting the interests of the w...
Tag this Judgment!Salar Publications Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]235ITR13(KAR); [1999]235ITR13(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. This is the second round of litigation in this court. The earlier writ petition W. P. No. 15879 of 1987 disposed of on December 7, 1987, was filed by the petitioner along with some other petitioners. In the said writ petition, annexure-K and L, dated September 28, 1987, were assailed. The petitioner filed objections in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner disputed the liability to pay any amount to Mr. Askar Mirza. The objections were rejected on the ground that the objections are not accompanied by a statement on oath as required under Section 226(3)(vi) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of the letter dated November 4, 1987, from which it was found that the affidavit sworn by Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Khan, secretary and trustee of the Salar Publications Trust, was submitted, and the court directed that the objections submitted by the petitioner be considered by passing an order under Section 226(...
Tag this Judgment!K. Munishamappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3849
ORDERAshok Bhan, J. 1. Noticing the conflict of opinion between two Single Bench judgments of this Court in BOREGOWDA v. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, : ILR1990KAR489 and S. BILLIGOWDA v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, : ILR1991KAR4369 regarding the ambit, scope and interpretation of Rule 5(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1985 (for short, 'the Rules'). The learned Single Judge has referred the following question of law for the consideration of the Larger Bench:'Whether under Rule 5(2) of Karnataka Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979, it has been open or not to the Appellate Authority, that is, the Deputy Commissioner to dismiss the appeal on merits or whether only course open and available was either to adjourn the appeal or to dismiss for default only?'2. Rule 1 to Rule 3 have no interest in the lis as they are statutory authorities. Rule 4 to Rule 6, the private contestin...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari Sandhya and Another Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ1565; ILR1999KAR367; 2000(2)KarLJ154
1. These appeals arise against the award passed in MVC Nos. 25 of 1988 and 26 of 1988.2. The respondent in both the appeals has filed cross-objections for reduction of compensation and also challenged the negligence.3. In MVC No. 32 of 1988, the claimant was the rider of the scooter. The appellants in these appeals were travelling as pillion riders on the scooter on 19-7-1987. At about 9.00 a.m. the accident took place near Mani on Mangalore Bangalore National Highway. While the driver of the scooter was going slowly on the left side of the road near the said spot, a KSRTC bus bearing No. MEF 618 came from the opposite direction in a high speed on the wrong side driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the scooter. As a result, all of them got injuries.4. For the claimants, P.Ws. 1 to 4 are examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 22 are marked. For the respondents, no witness is examined much less any document is marked.5. At the very outset, the contention of Mr. Dabali, learned Counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »