Karnataka Court August 1998 Judgments
H.T. Giriyappa Vs. the Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority, Bang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ496
ORDER1. Site No. 508, situated at 10th Main, 18th Cross, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, was allotted by the respondents to the petitioner on 29-1-1973. The petitioner has constructed a house and has been residing therein.2. Adjacent to the site allotted to the petitioner there is a small piece of marginal land measuring 10+18 ____________ x 50 23. When the things stood thus, respondents claim to have sent an endorsement dated 22-2-1995 to the petitioner, which is annexed to Annexure-C1, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,22,888-00 within 45 days of the receipt of the same. According to the respondents, this amount represents the average auction rate prevalent then for the excess marginal land of 32.46 sq. mtrs. and interest for the delayed payment of Rs. 5,000-00 paid by the petitioner earlier. The petitioner claims that he has not received the said endorsement. Hence, the respondents issued Annexure-C1 dated 27-8-1996 to the petitioner along with the endorsement dated 22-2-19...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Shivaprakash Vs. Central Silk Board, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ175
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the termination order passed by the respondent-Board and sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 9-6-1992. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to continue him in employment as 'Editor' pursuant to the memo of appointment dated 3-6-1992 vide Annexure-B which was accepted by him as per Annexure-C and further sought direction to continue the facilities extended to the petitioner from the date he was appointed for discharging his duties urging the following legal contentions:2. The brief facts are stated hereunder to consider the various contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties:The first respondent is a statutory Board constituted under the Central Silk Board Act, 1948 (the 'Act' in short) and Central Silk Board Rules of 1955 (the 'Rules' for short). The respondent in exercise of its power under Rule 28 of the Rules appointed the petitioner as...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Shetty and Another Vs. Aithu Poojary and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)260; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)390; 1999(2)KarLJ455
ORDER1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in committing the case to the Court of Sessions on the ground that both the cases will have to be tried by the Court of Sessions as they are a case and a counter case even if the case in question is not exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge. He further emphasised that only if both the cases are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate can commit the case to the Court of Sessions and not otherwise. He further submitted that the witnesses have no locus standi to make an application to the Court to commit the case to the Court of Sessions.2. Repelling this argument, the learned Advocate for the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that it iS a settled law that if there is a case and a counter case, both the cases will have to be tried by the same Court, lest it would lead to confusion and also inconsistent judgments. He further submitted that notwit...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Shetty and anr. Vs. Aithu Poojary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ177; ILR1998KAR3829
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the learned magistrate has committed an error in committing the case to the Court of Sessions on the ground that both the cases will have to be tried by the Court of Sessions as they are a case and a counter case even if the case in question is not exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge. He further emphasised that only if both the cases are triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate can commit the case to the Court of Sessions and not otherwise. He further submitted that the witnesses have no locus standi to make an application to the Court to commit the case to the Court of Sessions.2. Repelling this argument, the learned advocate for the 1st & 2nd respondents submitted that it is a settled law that if there is a case and a counter case, both the cases will have to be tried by the same Court, lest it would lead to confusion and also inconsistent Judgments. He further submi...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya and anr. Vs. Lalita Narayan Huslar and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-24-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ29
B.K. Sangalad, J.1. The respondent No. 1 who was minor on the date of the accident, that is, 19.9.1985, filed petition for compensation of Rs. 90,000 for the injuries sustained by her in the accident on the above said date at about 11 a.m. near Kasarkod on account of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No. CNE 1376. After making an enquiry, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 11,000 as the compensation, and has exonerated the insurance company from its liability to satisfy the award. Being aggrieved by this, the present appeal arises.2. Mr. Rashid Khan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was a valid policy on the date of the accident. As such the insurance company is liable. On the other hand Mr. Chinnappa K. Kambeyanda supported the judgment and award of the lower court. Policy is now produced. The copy of it is also given to Mr. C.K. Kambeyanda. No doubt the number of the vehicle is not mentioned. But the engine number, chassis number and the name...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Smt. Florrentina Hil ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ913; 1999(2)KarLJ65
ORDER1. This revision petition and the miscellaneous first appeal arise from the judgment and award dated 2-6-1994 given in Motor Vehicles Case No. 579 of 1990 and in Motor Vehicles Case No. 747 of 1990 on the file of the District Judge acting as MACT at Karwar. The Tribunal after having held that the injuries to the claimants have been caused due to the negligence in driving of the vehicle in question by the driver of the vehicle. It further held that claimant in Motor Vehicles Case No. 579 of 1990 and in Motor Vehicles Case No. 747 of 1990 were entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,750/- and Rs. 80,000/- respectively and awarded the same to the petitioners in two cases with costs and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. The Tribunal fastened the liability jointly and severally on the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company, namely the owner of the vehicle who is respondent 2 in the revision petition and on the r...
Tag this Judgment!Sampanna Gurusiddappa Maribasannavar Vs. the Special Land Acquisition ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ246
ORDER1. These revision petitions arise from the order dated 7-6-1994 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Chikkodi, (N.B. Kulkarni) rejecting the revision petitioners application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that application under Section 18(1) of the Act had not been moved within 90 days and so the respondent i.e., the Special Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to refer the original application. As such the application under Section 18(3)(b) was not maintainable.2. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that 90 days period from the date of communication of award under Section 12(2) is available to the person aggrieved, to move the application under Section 18(1) of the Act. That in the present case, notice of award dated 18-6-1988 had been served under Section 12(2) on the petitioners on 26-9-1989. The application under Section 18(1) was moved on 21-12-1...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Investment Bank of India Limited, Bangalore Vs. Indiana Dai ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas313(Kar); 2000(3)KarLJ283
ORDER1. This petition by the Industrial Investments Bank of India Limited and another is filed on 24-11-1997 under Section 40 of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 ('the Act of 1984' for short) for the following reliefs against respondent-Indiana Dairy Specialities Limited:'The petitioners therefore most humbly pray:(i) that orders under sub-clauses (i), (iii) and (iv) of Section 40(1)(b) of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 may be passed;(ii) such other order may be made in the premises as shall be just'.2. The substance of the petitioners' case pleaded in the petition is that the respondent is a public company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 which was established for manufacturing dairy products. The petitioner-Bank is a financial institution to which the undertaking of the erstwhile Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India ('IRBI' for short) which was established under the Act of 1984 has been transferred with effect from 27-3-1997 und...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. G. Ranganatha Iyengar (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. M/S. Telang Trust, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR151; 2000(3)KarLJ396
ORDER1. Since both these revision petitions are directed against the order dated 23rd of December, 1995 made in H.R.C. No. 3351 of 1983 by the II Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Judge'), they are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this order.2. In H.R.R.P. No. 470 of 1996, the petitioner, who is the tenant, has challenged the order passed by the learned Judge directing his eviction under Section 21(1)(c) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. In H.R.R.P. No. 566 of 1996, the petitioner, who is the landlord, has challenged the order passed by the learned Judge rejecting his claim for eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(a), (d) and (h) of the Act.4. In these revision petitions, the parties will hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord' and 'tenant'.5. Sri Chikkanagoudar, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant, challenged the order under revision primarily on two grounds...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Others Vs. Nabib Subedar R. Vanangamudi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)263; 1999(4)KarLJ168
Acts/Rules/Orders:Army Act, 1950 - Sections 52 and 164;Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 44, 62(1) and 147;Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 33 and 227(4)Cases Referred:Union of India and Others v. J.S. Brar, AIR 1993 SC 773, (1993) 2 SCJ 64;Union of India and Others v. Major A. Hussain, 1998 AIR SCW 171JUDGEMENT R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. On the failure of the appellants to produce record of the General Court Martial (GCM), the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent quashing the proceedings of the GCM and setting aside the orders dated 28-10-1986 and 16-3-1987 impugned in the writ petition. A direction was issued to the appellants to reinstate the respondent into service giving him arrears of salary from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement and all other consequential benefits within the time specified. The writ petition v/as allowed mainly on the ground that the respondent had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Rules 44 and 147 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »