Karnataka Court September 1998 Judgments
East India Transport Agency Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: [1998]94CompCas141(Kar)
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. These revision petitions raise a common question of law and, therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. C. R. P. No. 3242 of 1991 arises from the judgment and decree dated March 26, 1991, passed by the 8th Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, in S. C. No. 605 of 1988.3. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,001.05 with costs and future interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum from the date of the suit till realisation from the defendants. The first plaintiff, who is respondent No. 1 in the revision petition, had been carrying on business of general insurance of motor, marine, fire, etc., with its registered office at Delhi and regional office at Bangalore. The second plaintiff, i.e., respondent No. 2, is a trading concern carrying on its business of transporting goods from place to place. The defendant-revision petitioner is a public carrier in common law as well as under the Carr...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswamy Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Sub-division, Shimo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ300
1. Heard.2. The Government land measuring 1 acre 28 guntas in old Sy. No. 43/7, new Sy. No. 86 of Bommanakatte Village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District was granted to respondent 3 under Grant Certificate dated 3-10-1961 produced as Annexure-A. On 20-6-1963, the said land was sold by respondent 3 to one Channaiah, who, in turn, sold the same to petitioner on 24-4-1975.3. Subsequently, respondent 3-grantee made an application to the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of the 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 an enquiry was held by the Assistant Commissioner against petitioner. The order dated 12-3-1998, produced as Annexure-C, came to be passed by him allowing respondent 3's application and directing petitioner's eviction from the land for the purpose of its restoration to respondent 3 under Section 5(1) of the Act, on the ground that the land was alienated on ...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Subhashini K. Reddy Vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ441
ORDER1. This Public Interest Litigation is instituted by a public spirited Advocate who is concerned about plight of women and children who are denied their due in regard to travelling in the first respondent's city bus services.2. The grievance is that the first respondent's employees, such as driver and conductors do not enforce the provision relating to reservation of seats for women in buses; that the buses do not stop at the bus stops and stop 50 to 100 metres away putting the women and children into a lot of inconvenience of having to rush to the bus parked away from the bus stop; that the buses are not adhering to the timings fixed for their operation; that the buses are overloaded; that the buses over-speed within the city limits and the conductors do not give change after issuing tickets. All these infractions, it is contended, have put the women and children to a lot of inconvenience besides rendering the journey hazardous.3. The first respondent in its statement of objection...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B. Krishna Bhat Vs. Syndicate Bank, Puttur Branch, Dakshina Kannad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas338(Kar); 1999(4)KarLJ615
ORDER1. These two revision applications raises one common question of law. The question that has been raised is that, in the suit for recovery of money filed by the decree-holder, the revision petitioner Dr. B. Krishna Bhat was only a surety or guarantee for the payment of loan advanced by the Bank. That the suits i.e., Original Suit Nos. 7 and 8 of 1981 having been decreed by the Civil Judge, Puttur, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of the property of the surety i.e., the revision petitioner. The said case was numbered asEx. Case No. 266 of 1991 in one case, while in another case it was numbered as Ex. Case No. 267 of 1991 2. The revision petitioner urged before the Court below, as has been urged before this Court as well, that the decree-holder is not entitled to proceed to execute the decree against him unless he has exhausted the remedy against the principal debtor and specifically unless he has got the movable property of the principal d...
Tag this Judgment!Veerabhadrappa Vs. Smt. Vedavathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)110; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)321; 1999CriLJ144; II(1999)DMC81; ILR1998KAR4034; 1998(6)KarLJ297
ORDER1. The respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. before the JMFC, Challakere, seeking maintenance from the petitioner-husband. Notice was ordered thereon to the petitioner husband. In the meantime, respondent filed an interlocutory application i.e., I.A. No. I seeking interim maintenance. Learned Magistrate, by his order dated 31-10-1996, granted interim maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month from the said date. Notice of I.A. No. I was also ordered. Petitioner-husband appeared through a Counsel and filed objections. Matter was then posted from time to time for payment of interim maintenance and on 5-4-1997, petitioner-husband filed objections to the main petition as also to the interlocutory application.' It may be mentioned in this context that the petitioner-husband had appeared through a Counsel on 7-12-1996, and, it was only on 5-4-1997 that he filed objections to the main petition and to the interlocutory application. Matter was then posted for enquiry fr...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rajeswari and Others Vs. the Divisional Controller, Bangalore Tra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC347; 2000ACJ732; ILR1999KAR1983; 1999(1)KarLJ188
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is a claimants appeal for enhancement of compensation being dissatisfied with the award of compensation in M.V.C. No. 1623 of 1987, dated 25-1-1990 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City.2. The brief facts are as follows:The wife, sons and mother of the deceased Nagabhushana presented a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 27,90,728/- on the ground that on 30-5-1987 at about 8.40 p.m. while the deceased Nagabhushana was boarding the stationary bus bearing registration No. MEF 370 on route No. 284-B from Shivajinagar to Yelahanka, the driver of the bus drove the vehicle with a jerk as a result, the deceased fell down, sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries at 10.45 p.m. in the hospital. The deceased was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Karnataka Electricity Board drawing a salary of Rs. 4,600/- p.m. He had the prospects of becoming th...
Tag this Judgment!Arunkumar and Others Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwar Revenue D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ28
Acts/Rules/Orders:Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 128 and 129Cases Referred:Hanumantha Gowda v. Gidde Gowda, ILR 1998 Kar. Sh. N. 62 (RSA No. 863 of 1990, DD: 27-10-1997)JUDGEMENT1. This appeal is filed assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.2. The case of the appellants is that they filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of a registered Will executed by the testator. According to the facts of the case, the testator registered the Will and thereafter cancelled the same. Relying on those Wills, the appellants filed a petition for mutation. The contesting respondent filed objections stating that there is another Will executed by the testator. That request was carried to the High Court in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the parties have to approach the Civil Court to sort out their rights to the land as there are rival claims.3. Learned Counsel for the appellants ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lalithawwa and Others Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri Sub- ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ680
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed in the matter of mutation. This petition has been filed against the order dated 13-7-1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in RTS: APPEAL : 123: 1997-98 whereby the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar after having opined that the respondent 2 has been the adopted son of Ningawa and that Ningawa had executed a Will in favour of 2nd respondent and therefore he is only entitled to succeed. On this basis, he set aside the order of the Deputy Tahsildar who had ordered mutation in favour of the petitioners as well.3. The case in question involves a questions of fact as the learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the adoption as well as the execution of Will relied upon by the Assistant Commissioner. These questions of fact can well be decided on merits after trial of the issues by the Civil Court. The ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Mohammad Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR634; 1998(6)KarLJ30
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. On an apparent conflict between the views expressed by the Division Benches of the Court in Laxmamma v State of Karnataka and Others and in Smt. Bhagi Hengsu v Rocky Lasrado, this writ petition has been referred to a Larger Bench by Justice Tilhari to resolve the conflict after framing the following questions to be answered. Namely: '(1) Whether in view of Sections 4 and 11 of the Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979, Rule 29-A introduced in the Karnataka Land Grant Rules stands obliterated from the backdate (retrospectively) and is to be deemed to have stood obliterated and ineffective, namely, it stood obliterated from the date it was introduced and particularly, on the date when the transaction in question dated 22-3-1977, was entered into? (2) Whether the transaction dated 22-3-1977, which was in breach of Rule 21 of the Board's Standing Order as operative on the dateof the grant, that is, 25-6-1939, and can the conditions be deemed to be existing on the date, ...
Tag this Judgment!T.G. Chandrashekharappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ326
ORDER1. Heard Mrs. Manjula R. Kamadolli, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. V. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent 1, Mr. N. Devadas, learned Counsel for respondent 2 and Mr. S.M. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent 4.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directions upon the 2nd and 3rd respondents to cancel the appointments of 4th and 5th respondents for the posts of Lecturer in History in constituent colleges of the respondent-Kuvempu University. His further prayer is to direct the respondents to select him for the said post.3. The petitioner was one of the interviewees like respondents 4 and 5 for appointment to the post of lecturer in the discipline of History against the vacancies, which is three in number, in constituent colleges of the respondent-University. Admittedly, the said three posts had been reserved each for Group-IIA, General Merit and Scheduled Caste. In the selection process, the respondent-University select...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »