Karnataka Court August 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
B.K. Devapaiah Vs. Mahabala Shetty and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ1346; ILR1999KAR1009; 1999(2)KarLJ215
1. Heard both sides.2. These two appeals are filed by the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing Registration Nos. MVC 3704 and 3705 against the respective awards of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, both dated 5-1-1988, passed under its common judgment in MVC Nos. 42 to 67 of 1985, 7 of 1985 and 8 of 1985 granting compensation to the claimants therein fixing the entire liability on the appellant alone and absolving respondent 3-insurer of the vehicle of liability to pay the same to claimants.3. In MVC No. 7 of 1985 giving rise to MFA No. 1202 of 1988, the total compensation of Rs. 18,000/- has been granted to the claimant, who is respondent 1, under the impugned award together with 9% interest p.a. In MVC No. 8 of 1985 which has given rise to MFA No. 1244 of 1988 an amount of Rs. 22,100/- with interest at 9% per annum has been awarded under the impugned award to respondent 1 therein.4. Admittedly, the said Tractor-cum-Trailer of the appellant was duly insured ...
Smt. Parvathamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ224
ORDER1. This writ petition has been very vehemently agitated on a point that is of considerable importance to judicial proceedings. The petitioner before me Parvathamma claims that she is entitled to the grant of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No. 43 of Ravagodlu Village. Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. We are not immediately concerned with the remaining two survey numbers because those are not the subject-matter of the controversy. The respondents had challenged the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner before this Court more than once. On the last occasion when the litigation had been raging for 23 years, a compromise was entered into and the compromise memo was tendered to the Court. This was duly attested by the parties and their respective advocates. My brother Ramakrishna, J. as he then was by order dated 4-10-1996 took the document on record and it is clear from the order passed that the Court has applied its mind to the contents of th...
Ganapathyraja Enterprises Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant107
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern and its proprietor is one Ganapathiraja. He is an Ex-defence employee and belongs to Scheduled Caste. He is before this Court seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the first respondent-Bangalore Development Authority hereinafter called as 'Authority' in respect of Civic Amenity Site No. 30 situated at 4th Block, Koramangaia. A further direction is sought against respondent to receiveBangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act, 12 of 1976), the Government of Karnataka hereby specifies the following amenities to be 'Civic Amenities' for the purpose of the said Act, namely :-- 1. Liquified Petroleum Gas Godowns, 2. Retail domestic fuel depots, 3. Petrol retail outlets, 4. Motor repair/servicing garages, 5. Crematoria/graveyards and other such places for the, disposal of the dead; 6. Areas for dumping city garbage. 3. The petitioner pursuant to notification Ann...
Smt. Parvathamma Vs. State of Karnataka of ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3950
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This Writ Petition has been very vehemently agitated on a point that is of considerable importance to judicial proceedings. The petitioner before me Parvathamma claims that she is entitled to the grant of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No. 43 of Ravagodlu village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. We are not immediately concerned with the remaining two survey numbers because those are not the subject matter of the controversy. The respondents had challenged the earlier order passed by the tribunal in favour of the petitioner before this Court more than once. On the last occasion when the litigation had been raging for 23 years, a compromise was entered into and the compromise memo was tendered to the Court. This was duly attested by the parties and their respective advocates. My brother Ramakrishna J. as he then was by order dated 4.10.96 took the document on record and it is clear from the order passed that the Court has applied its mind to the conte...
Ganapati Gopal Bhat Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)176; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)483; 1998CriLJ4779; ILR1999KAR2141; 1999(1)KarLJ260
ORDER1. Petitioner is common in all these revision petitions. He is the registered owner/RC holder in respect of the vehicle MYS 1723. He came to be prosecuted in all these cases for failure to pay tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ('Act' for short) for severalquarters ranging from 1-5-1982 to 31-1-1986. In all the said cases, he has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine equivalent to tax for one quarter, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. His appeals have come to be dismissed. He has now approached this Court under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C. 2. The first ground urged by Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that all complaints were barred by time and the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence concerned in view of Section 468 in Cr. P.C. occurring in Chapter 36 of the Cr. P.C. In this regard, provisions of the Karna...
R. Ninge Gowda Vs. A.N. Gopal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ884; 1999(2)KarLJ104
ORDER1. This petition is filed against the orders dated 11-4-1991 and 26-9-1991 holding that the sanction is not necessary and for issuing summonsagainst the petitioner.2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:One Smt. Banumathi, second wife of the second respondent died in unnatural circumstance on 27-8-1989. In September 1989, a complaint was registered by the brother of the deceased Sudhakar in Crime No. 182 of 1989 by the Kolar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The petitioner was the Investigating Officer. On 6-11-1989, the respondent got the anticipatory bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar in C. Misc. No. 160 of 1989. In the meanwhile a claim petition was filed by the respondent with the insurance company seeking insured amount on the policy of the deceased. On5-4-1990 the respondent alleged in the complaint that he is summoned by the petitioner to produce document relating to claim of insurance amount in respect of the dece...
Sannegowda Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mandya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ231
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Srinivas holding brief for Sri Mahantesh S. Hosmath and Sri M.H. Ibrahim, learned Government Pleader.2. This revision arises from the order dated 13-12-1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mandya, dismissing the revision petitioner's application under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act as has been barred by time.3. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that, in land acquisition proceedings, award was given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which award is dated 1-10-1990. Revision petitioner was paid the compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,222/- as per voucher dated 14-10-1992. The voucher was passed for payment on 14-10-1992. The revision petitioner after receipt of the amount filed a protest note with prayer that the amount assessed is too low and unsatisfactory and the matter should be referred to the Civil Court for decision under Section 18. This way he made prayer for reference being made under Section 18 ...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bangalore Vs. Mrs. Lucy Banil ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ370
ORDER1. This is a tenant's revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.2. The respondent is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) in regard to the petition schedule premises in House Rent Case No. 326 of 1984 filed by the landlord against the tenant under clause (a) of the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Mangalore.3. The case of the landlord is briefly as follows : There was a term lease of the premises upto the end of 30-9-1983 in favour of the tenant. The tenant continued as a statutory tenant from 1-10-1983. The rent for the premises is Rs. 468.75 per month. The tenant did not pay the rents from 1-10-1983. Therefore, a registered notice dated 5-8-1984 was sent by the landlord to the tenant demanding payment of rent. The said notice was sent to the Registered Office (Bombay), Regional Office (Bangalore) and the Sales Office (Mang...
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bailhongal, Belgaum District Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ511; (1999)ILLJ89Kant
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Award of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge passed in writ petitions have been challenged by the appellant on the grounds:(1) That the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the 'Central Act') were not applicable in cases covered by the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter called the 'State Act'). (2) That the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (A.P.M.C.) was not an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Central Act and (3) That even on merits the respondents-workmen were not entitled to the relief of being reinstated with back wages. 2. In order to appreciate the questions of law formulated hereinabove it is necessary to have a resume of the facts in these appeals.The respondents-workmen herein were in the employment of the A.P.M.C. when their services were allegedly terminated. In some cases the industrial disputes raised by them were referred to the Labour Cour...
J.B. Advani and Co. (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collector of Cus.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT311(Kar)
1. This appeal has been filed along with LA. No. 1 for condoning the delay of 6 days in filing the appeal. I.A. 1 and the appeal are taken up together for disposal.2. As the delay in filing the appeal is only six days, we were favourably inclined to condone the delay but since against the main judgment on which the impugned judgment is based, has already been dismissed in W.A. 1868/98, dated 11-6-98, we decline to do so as no purpose will be served in issuing notice to the respondents to come and defend the application for condonation of delay only.3. The appeal is dismissed in view of the orders in W.A. 1868/1998, dated 11-6-1998 [2004 (163) E.L.T. 303 (Kar.)]....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »