Karnataka Court September 1998 Judgments
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Developme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1998
Reported in: 2000(2)KarLJ573
ORDER1. The Government acquired for the benefit of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board the land measuring 16 acres 29 guntas in S. Nos. 62/B, 186 and 187 of Koragalli Village, Yelwal Hobli, Mysore, from the respondent. Compensation was awarded in favour of the respondent. Therefore, to recover the compensation awarded by the Court, the respondent filed Ex. Petition No. 19 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Mysore against the petitioner and the petitioner had made certain payments and thereafter filed a memo of calculation reporting to the Court that the amount paid by the petitioner is much more than the amount for which the respondent is entitled to under the execution. The office also calculated and came to the conclusion that the amount paid by the petitioner is insufficient to satisfy the decree. After hearing both the parties, the Court has accepted the method of calculation adopted by the office of the Court. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India and Another Vs. Smt. Norrunnissa Begum and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-1998
Reported in: 2000(2)KarLJ482
1. All these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.MFA Nos. 589, 590, 591, 1552 and 1555 of 1997 pertain to the acquisition proceedings of the land in Village Naubad, Bidar Taluk. Rest of the appeals pertain to Chidri Village, Bidar Taluk. The dispute is regarding the compensation which has been awarded by the Civil Judge at the rate of Rs. 43,000/- per acre for both the villages. Whereas in respect of Naubad Village, the LAO has awarded Rs. 15,000/- per acre while in respect of Chidri Village, the compensation of Rs. 9,600/- per acre has been awarded. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the market value has been determined on the basis of the award passed in LAC No. 146 of 1988, pertaining to Myloor Village which is at a distance of about 1 km and the valuation in respect of the land of other village could not have been applied, unless it is established that the nature of the land is the same or that the market price prevailing in the two villages...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Acquisition Officer, Krishnapur, Taluk Shorapur, District Gul ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ521
ORDER1. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader. 2. The contention of the petitioner-State, in this petition, is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the application filed under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. The Supreme Court in the case of Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and Another v Shah Manilal Chandulal and Others, has held.-- 'The Collector/LAO is not a Court when he acts as a statutory authority under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18'.4. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, if it is a Court, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v Thakoredas Major and Others, has held that the application by the claimant t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahakali Alias Bhadrakali Temple, Gokarn Vs. Smt. Parvati Krishna Holl ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR236; 2000(3)KarLJ147
ORDER1. Petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the file of the Munsiff, Kumta against one Sreedhar Lakshminarayana Ital since deceased by his legal representatives, respondents herein on the ground that two items of properties in Survey No. 374/B were leased to respondents by means of a lease deed dated 6-1-1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- but subsequently raised to Rs. 60/- p.m. from the year 1978. Respondents defaulted to pay the rents from 1978. Hence a notice was issued dated 10-11-1980, received by him on 17-11-1980. Respondent failed to comply with the terms of notice, hence eviction was sought under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.2. Respondent contested the petition denying generally he was due any rents but more specific of his defence was that of the two items of property sought for eviction, one item of property was a vacant land, over which he has put up the construction w...
Tag this Judgment!Kumari R. Shubha Sangeetha Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Scien ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR23; 1999(2)KarLJ656
ORDER1. This writ appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the prayer insofar as it relates to revaluation of the answer scripts.2. The petitioner Kumari R. Shubha Sangeetha, secured a seat for admission to the I Year MBBS Course for the academic year 1996-97 and took admission to Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Bellur, which was affiliated to the University of Mysore. That after the commencement of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act of 1994 which came into force from 1-6-1996, all the medical colleges and autonomous bodies insofar as the subject of Health Sciences which were under the control of University of Mysore, University of Bangalore, University of Karnatak, University of Mangalore, University of Gulbarga and Kuvempu University were deemed to have been affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS). The University held examinations for I Year MBBS Course for t...
Tag this Judgment!Shidramappa Harihar Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ677
ORDER1. Heard Mr. M.B. Chandrachooda, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.I. D'Sa, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directions upon the 2nd respondent to consider his application, which has been forwarded from the Employment Exchange Office, Raichur, for selection of High School Teachers Recruitment 1997-98, Gulbarga Division.3. The petitioner is an aspirant for appointment to the post of High School Teacher Grade-II in Gulbarga Division. For appointment to the said post, the Deputy Director of Public Instructions has published a notification dated 31-10-1997 in the Karnataka Gazette, condition No.(1) whereof is relevant for the present purpose which reads thus.--4. The aforesaid condition clearly shows that every candidate who is eligible for appointment to the post in question must have registered his name in the Employment Exchange of the respective Division and the application should be filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Shah Muhammad Al Hussaini Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant112; ILR1999KAR8
ORDER1. Alleging violation of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is a Sajjada Nasheena, Mutawalii of a wakf operating in Gulbarga District, has filed this petition to declare Sections 14, 33, 38, 61, 64, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 96 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter called 'the Act') as unconstitutional. It is further prayed that the wakf created by the Muslims be allowed to remain dependent upon the wish and desire of the Waquif, being uninfluenced by the offending statute. However, during the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, restricted his arguments regarding the constitutional validity of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and did not argue with respect to the validity of other sections prayed in the writ petition to be declared as unconstitutional.2. It has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the scheme of the offending section makes it possible for persons to become the member of the Wakf Board, who are ...
Tag this Judgment!Kum. Babitha Nugala Vs. Common Entrance Test Cell, Govt. of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant183
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. Sixteen candidates hailing from different parts of the Country chose Government Pre-University College for Boys at Koppal for taking the entrance test conducted by the Common Entrance Test Cell. All the 16 were allotted consecutive CET Registration Nos. from RR 113 to RR 128. In the examination Centre designated for the purpose, these 16 students were allotted Room No. 8 from where fifteen out of them took the test on 13th and 14th of June 1998. While the result of test conducted at nearly 250 different centres all over the State was announced on 14th of July 1998 that of candidates who appeared from Room No. 8 of Koppal Centre was withheld. Aggrieved by the non-declaration of their results, some of the candidates, filed W.P. Nos. 21797-800/1998 and connected matters in this Court, in which the CET Cell appeared to justify the withholding of the results on the ground that the candidates concerned had indulged in mass-copying. The CET Cell proposed to hold a...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.A. Kurian and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: I(2000)ACC285
B.K. Sangalad, J.1. The Insurance Company alone has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award in M.V.C. No. 1453/91, awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,55,100/-.2. The facts of the case regarding place, time and date of accident and the negligence are not in dispute. Mr. S.P. Shankar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the amount that is awarded is on the higher side. On the other hand Mr. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants relied upon a decision in case of Shankarayya and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. reported in : AIR1998SC2968 submitted that appeal itself is not maintainable.3. It is also on record that the appellant had not filed any application under Section 170 of the M.V. Act for obtaining permission from the Court to contest on all the points. In view of this decision and in view of the mandate the appeal is not maintainable. Hence appeal stands dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!A. Nagaraja Vs. the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ161; (1999)ILLJ1231Kant
ORDER1. Heard Mr. B. Prabhu Devaru, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Lakshminarayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Kaleemulla Shariff, learned Counsel for respondent 3.2. The petitioner being unsuccessful in getting an appointment to the post of Helper (B) in the respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (in short the 'Corporation') has approached this Court with the prayer that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-Corporation should be directed to provide him an appointment to the said post by quashing the selection of the 3rd respondent.3. As per the KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982, the minimum educational qualification required for appointment to the post of Helper (B) (Class IV) is that a person must have passed the certificate course either in ITC or ITI after passing the Secondary School Leaving Certificate conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board or eq...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »