Karnataka Court March 2000 Judgments

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Nagaraj Hatwar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2000Kant325; 2001(2)KarLJ209

ORDER1. Heard Mr. Govindaraj for the petitioner and Mr. B.L. Acharya, for the respondent.2. By the impugned order the First Appellate Court has granted the injunction restraining the K.S.R.T.C. from disturbing the possession of the respondent who claims to be the licensee. The Trial Court however dismissed the application for injunction.3. It is contended by the K.S.R.T.C. that once the licence comes to an end, the question of granting any injunction does not arise in favour of the licensee. In fact, the matter came to be considered by this Court in the two unreported revision petitions, i.e., C.R.P. No. 3077 of 1999, disposed of on 7-1-2000, my brother Justice Mohamed Anwar, considered the Standing Order No. 407 of 1994 applicable to the K.S.R.T.C., which is to the following effect:'Obviously the expression of the words 'enhanced to 6 years' should be understood that the duration of the contract period of the commercial establishments of the Corporation here afterwards would be for 6 ...

Matada Basaiah Vs. Gowdara Nanjappa and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ357

ORDER1. This is the rival tenant's revision challenging the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Shimoga District, Shimoga in No. LRA(W) 749 of 1986, dated 27-10-1988 rejecting Form 1 by setting aside theorder of the Land Tribunal, Shimoga in No. INA 9, 10 of 1979-80 and VKP 23 and 24 of 1983-84, dated 17-4-1986. The lands in Sy. Nos. 3, 6/2, 20 and 41/2 situated at Venkatapura Village are the Inam lands endowed to Sri Kudli Rameshwara Devaru. In respect of the said lands, the applicants by name Sri Subbaraya, Gowdara Nanjappa, Matada Basaiah and Smt. Vrundamma filed applications for grant of occupancy rights. Subbaraya filed Form 1 claiming to be an Inamdar to the entire extent of 27 acres 29 guntas in the above survey numbers. Gowdara Nanjappa a!so filed Form 1 claiming 2 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 41/2 as a tenant under the temple. The present petitioner Matada Basaiah also filed application for grant of occupancy right as tenant under Subbaraya in respect of the land measu...

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Pampareddy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ207

ORDER1. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. This is a management writ petition. The KSRTC challenges the award passed by the Labour Court at Annexure-D and the order onpreliminary issue at Annexure-A.3. The respondent was a conductor under the petitioner-Corporation. The allegation against the respondent was that he failed to issue tickets of the denomination of Rs. 2.25 despite collection of the fare to 12 passengers. The misconduct alleged to have taken place on 6-9-1993. There was a domestic enquiry and ultimately the workman-respondent came to be dismissed from service on 29-9-1994. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, a dispute was raised under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act.4. On a preliminary issue, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. The matter was taken up on merits. Unfortunately in this case the management did not lead evidence for nearly four years. The Labour Court notwithstanding this passed an award setting a...

Shankareppa Vs. the Thungabhadra Grameena Bank, Mudagal Branch, Raichu ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2000Kant326; 2000(5)KarLJ264

ORDER1. Heard Mr. P.G. Mogali for the petitioner and Mr. Agnihotri, for thefirst respondent.2. An interesting question has been raised in this revision petition. The petitioner judgment-debtor 2 was sought to be arrested in execution of a decree for money. The petitioner was a surety and he claimed that he has no mean's to pay. The executing Court ordered arrest. The point raised is whether a surety on whose behalf the loan was granted can raise a plea of no means. The authorities uniformly held that answer to the above question in negative.3. In V. Velayudhan v State Bank of India, it is held as follows:'Obligation to account to the decree-holder is the first requirement of the clause, and every judgment-debtor whether he is a principal debtor or a mere guarantor or a surety has the said obligation to the decree-holder in accordance with the nature or circumstance in each case. Learned Counsel cited the decision in Prem Ballabh Khulbe v Mathura Datt Bhatt , wherein a partner in a firm...

Shankar Vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer, Grbc, Sub-division 7 and ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001ACJ1119; [2000(86)FLR871]; ILR2000KAR2632; 2000(5)KarLJ577

B.K. Sangalad1. The appellant is the applicant who has filed the application for the compensation on 21-1-1992 stating that he was working as a Coolie under the respondent 2. On 12-6-1991 when he was working, the soil block and the stones fell on his head and legs, as such he sustained injuries especially the toes. Hence he claimed the compensation of Rs. l,00,000/-.2. Mr. Anand Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner has not followed the mandatory provision as per Section 28(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader submitted that there was a compromise and the memorandum was sent to the Commissioner who registered it on being satisfied that there was no undue influence, fraud, much less any coercion and inadequacy. Hence the memorandum has to be accepted. 3. In view of these rival submissions, the award of the learned Commissioner is perused. According to Section 28(1) of the Workmen's Compens...

Smt. Marulamma Vs. G. Lakshmapa Naika and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2000KAR2428; 2000(4)KarLJ498

ORDER1. Heard on I.A. No. I.2. There is a delay in filing this appeal to the extent of 739 days.3. According to Mr. Mariyappa, learned Counsel for the appellant, the deceased Karisiddadevaru who himself was a practising Advocate and the son-in-law of the appellant was not keeping sound health. He met with an accident on 18-4-1997 and also he was admitted in the Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology on 26-1-1998 and subsequently, suffered another heart attack and was admitted into Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore on 17-9-1998 and was discharged on 24-9-1998. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is not deliberate. As such, the delay be condoned.4. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent 1 submitted that in the affidavit nowhere it is mentioned that the deceased Karisiddadevaru was hospitalised before he met with an accident. It is also submitted that the judgment by the I Additional District Judge was pronounced on 4-12-1996 in ...

M. Manjunath Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2001KAR117; 2001(1)KarLJ195

ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the endorsement dated 17-1-1999 in No. Tikannya:MPH 1/93-94, 1/98-99 issued by the respondent 2-Tahsildar, Thirthahalli, copy as at Annexure-J to writ petition, in issuance of which, he had communicated the petitioner that the grant of 1 acre 38 guntas of land in S. No. 13 of Odalamane Village, Thirthahalli Taluk, made in favour of the original grantee, Smt. Kamala Shedthi came to be cancelled by the order of the non-party Assistant Commissioner in No. 679 of 1971-72, dated 23-1-1972 and as such, the request of phodi work could not be considered.2. It is to be noted here that when the instant writ petition is pending before this Court, the respondents 4 to 87 bad filed an application for impleading themselves and upon hearing the parties, the said application came to be allowed and in the process the respondents 4 to 87 came to be arrayed as respondents as above.3. The respondent 3, a formal party having been served with notice had remaine...

T.S. Raju Vs. S. Anil Kumar and Another

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ336

ORDER1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25-11-1998 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Mandya on I.A. No. 4 in O.S. No. 214 of 1996, has preferred the above revision petition.2. The impugned order is one under which the amendment sought for by the plaintiff was dismissed not only on limitation but also on the ground that it is not based on the admitted facts.3. The Trial Court has considered the objection of the defendant that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 29-11-1993 and the suit for cancellation of an instrument is to be filed within a period of three years from the date of such instrument. The present application for amendment having been filed on 25-6-1998, which is beyond the period of limitation. The objection to such contention by the plaintiff was that he need not ask for cancellation of the sale deed and those sale deeds are void ab initio and therefore there is no necessity to seek for cancellation o...

H.V. Nagendrappa Vs. M.H. Hanumappa and Others

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1.Being aggrieved by the order dated 14-12-1992 passed by the Civil Judge, Chitradurga, on LA. 8 in O.S. No. 134 of 1986, the petitioner has preferred the above revision petition. 2. The facts of the case as mentioned by the petitioner are: The plaintiffs are claiming to be the owners of the property in question by virtue of a sale deed dated 15-1-1945. The first defendant petitioner claims the ownership of the said property by virtue of a sale deed dated 20-1-1981 in respect of 3 acres 13 guntas in Sy. No. 10. The land in Sy. No. 10 has undergone changes inasmuch as divisions and sub-divisions have taken place and the property which was bearing Sy. No. 10 has lost its characteristic and the sites have been formed and buildings have come including a cinema theatre and silk reeling industry. These factors are within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. They have not taken steps to assert their possession or claim by virtue of the alleged sale deed. However, one of the plaintiffs had fi...

Canara Bank, J.C. Road, Bangalore Vs. B.E. Nanjundalah and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ20

1. This is plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and decree dated 24-10-1996 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate (Mr. R. Chandrashekhar), Shimoga, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit in part while decreeing it in part i.e., for the sum of Rs. 2,92,846.07 with proportionate costs thereon. The Trial Court held that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the said sum of Rs. 2,92,846/- to the plaintiff-Bank. It also directed that the defendants to pay pendente life and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realisation on the principal amount of Rs. 1,23,740/-. The plaintiff is at liberty to proceed against the mortgaged suit properties by selling the same for realisation of the decretal amount, in case the amount is not paid within six months. The Trial Court further directed that the plaintiff is also entitled for personal decree against defendants 1 to 4 if it is found that the proc...