Karnataka Court April 2000 Judgments
H. Surendra Shetty Vs. Vijaya Bank, Bangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2883; 2000(5)KarLJ436
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Domestic enquiries into the charges of misconduct of employees do not always inspire any great confidence in their impartiality because employer virtually becomes a Judge in his own cause by appointing his nominee as the enquiry officer. The eroding faith in the domestic enquiry will vanish altogether, if an employer goes on repeating enquiries till the ultimate result satisfies him in the style of repeating the mixture till the patient is dead. It is therefore necessary to visit even domestic enquiries with an increasing content of fairness and insulating as far as possible their perfunctoriness.2. It is trite that a person cannot be vexed twice for the same cause. An employee officer against whom disciplinary proceedings had been initiated on a particular charge as a result of which a punishment of 'warning' is also awarded by the employer, cannot subsequently charge-sheet him for the same offence is the theme of this writ petition.3. Petitioner is employed as S...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana and Another Vs. H.R. Mohankumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ493; AIR2000Kant349; ILR2000KAR4791; 2001(1)KarLJ244
ORDER1. This petition is filed challenging the order of the Principal District Judge and MACT at Mysore dated 4th June, 1999 in M.V.C. No. 155 of 1994 by the owner and the Insurance Company.2. Facts.--Respondent-claimant filed a petition in M.V.C. No. 155 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Judge and MACT at Mysore, seeking for a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/-. After contest, the claim was allowed in terms of the order at Annexure-A, dated 30th November, 1998. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- together with interest. No appeal was filed against the said order. Thereafter an application was filed under Order 41, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC to review the order dated 30-11-1998 for awarding compensation at Rs. 2,00,000/- together with interest and costs and the said application, on contest, is allowed by the Tribunal. It is this order that is challenged before me by the petitioner on the ground that the Tribunal is not a Civil Court and it cannot review it...
Tag this Judgment!Channabasappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR681; 2001(1)KarLJ542
ORDER1. These petitioners had been nominated to the Committee of various cooperative societies arrayed as respondents in the respective writ petitions, the State Government, one of the respondents, having nominated them in exercise of its power under Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 ('Act' for short). In all these proceedings, the petitioners have invariably been nominated by various orders passed in the first week of October, 1999, the order in respect of each of the petitioners specifying that he is appointed for a period of five years or until the term of the Committee expires, whichever is earlier. All these nominations however came to be annulled by the State Government passing orders to that effect in the last week of October, 1999, purportedly in exercise of its power under Section 29(1) of the Act read with Section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899 ('General Clauses Act' for short). What is of significance is that, the nominations had b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. P. Aswathamma and Others Vs. Hotel Sathyaprakash, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)KarLJ367
1. This is defendants' appeal from the judgment and decree dated 19th April, 1997, whereby the Trial Court (18th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore), decreed plaintiffs claim for recovery of money in O.S. No.2548 of 1986. The plaintiff-respondent filed the above suit against one Subbaiah for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,09,600/-, with the allegation to the effect that B.S. Subbaiah borrowed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- on 15-3-1983 and 19-5-1983, from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum. 2. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had taken Rs. 50,000/- on March 15th, 1983 and Rs. 30,000/- on 19th May, 1983, and according to the plaintiff, B.S. Subbaiah, agreed to repay the loan as above. According to plaintiff, Sri B.S. Subbaiah had executed an stamped pronote receipt on May 10th, 1983. It may be mentioned here that due to some confusion, as appears in the plaint vide paragraph V, it was originally typed as 10th May, 1983, instead of 19th May, 1983. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Mallappa Karigannawar Vs. Smt. Umadevi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: I(2001)ACC678; ILR2001KAR402; 2001(2)KarLJ501
1. The Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company v Satpal Singh and Others, has held as follows.--'The result is that under the new Act an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. Hence the decisions rendered under the old Act vis-a-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering the liability of the insurance company in respect of any accident which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force'.2. Following the above judgment and for the reasons stated therein, I hold that the Insurance Company is liable and not the owner.3. Accordingly the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest at 6% p.a. as expeditiously as possible.4. The appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant is not held liable as it is covered by the Insurance Policy as held by the Supreme Court in the decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Shivsharnappa (Deceased) by L.Rs. and Others Vs. the Special Land Acqu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ229
1. These appeals arise from the common judgment and award dated 29th June, 1996 delivered by the II Additional District Judge (Mr. V.K. Dwarakanath), Gulbarga in Land Acquisition Case Appeal Nos. 45, 46, 83, 84, 85, 86 of 1992 and 1 to 3 of 1993 which had been filed from the common judgment dated 2-1-1992 delivered by the Additional Civil Judge (Mr. P.G. Kulkarni), Gulbarga, in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of 1989.2. From the common judgment delivered by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Gulbarga, above land acquisition cases the said appeals have been allowed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Gulbarga, with costs.3. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to give the following chart which indicates the number of M.S.A., L.A.C.A. and L.A.C., survey number and the extent of land involved in each case and the nature of land:M.S.A. No.L.A.C.A. No.LAC. No.Survey No.ExtentNature of land123456 A.G.557 of 19982 of 199331 of 198945/B5...
Tag this Judgment!R. Maheshwari and Others Vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC608; 2001(3)KarLJ212
ORDERW.P. Nos. 43544 and 43601 to 43603 of 19991. Facts: The petitioner has a permit bearing No. 33/64 authorising the petitioner to operate on the route Tirupathi to Bangalore and back performing one round trip per day countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Bangalore on single point tax and petitioner was a saved operator under Kolar Pocket Scheme. Petitioner sought for variation of the condition of the permit by way of grant of one more round trip with inclusion of one more vehicle. The said variation was granted by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh (for short 'STA, AP') under Item No. 6, dated 24-3-1984. The Secretary of the STA, AP directed to fix the timings in view of the order of the STA, AP allowing variation timings were fixed on 24-6-1984. The said variation was also endorsed in the permit with effect from 3-7-1984 subject to the condition that the petitioner obtained the counter-signature from the KSTA, Bangalore on double point tax. The permit was origi...
Tag this Judgment!State by Kasthur Police Vs. Appajigowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ356
ORDER1. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.2. Though the accused has been awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the State has presented this appeal and the contention raised is that a fine should also have been imposed. Apart from justifying the submission on the basis of the facts in the present case what the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits is that the Court ought to have imposed a fine and a default sentence and that not having done so is incorrect. First of all, a perusal of the judgment indicates that the Trial Judge has taken into consideration the economic condition of the accused and has held that having regard to his poverty conditions that no useful purpose would be served by imposing a sentence of fine which could only be meagre. The default sentence even if awarded would merge with the main sentence and having regard to this position, the Court has rightly not imposed any ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Doreswamy Naidu Vs. B.N. Patil and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3406; 2000(4)KarLJ322
ORDER1. This is an application under Section 29(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') to stop further proceedings in HRRPNo. 1091 of 1997.2. The petitioner in HRRP No. 1091 of 1997 is the tenant who is questioning his eviction from the schedule premises in HRC No. 2008 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.3. The respondent-landlord has made an application for stopping further proceedings under Section 29(4) of the Act on the ground that as on the day, the revision petition was filed, a sum of Rs. 2,275/- was due and the petitioner has made an endorsement in the revision petition that as on the day of the revision, no amount was due. Even thereafter from 11-7-1997 upto 10-1-1999 for a period of 18 months a sum of Rs. 5,850/-has been in arrears and therefore the proceedings are liable to be stopped under Section 29(4) of the Act and the petitioner directed to surrender vacant possession of the premises.4. The petitioner claims that he ...
Tag this Judgment!Anjinappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3501; 2000(5)KarLJ158
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The appellants before us face two charges: Firstly, that on the night of 22-1-1990 in the house of P.W. 11 (Obalamma) they are alleged to have committed the murder of Ramanna by squeezing his testicles and secondly in furtherance of their common intention that they took the dead body to a tree nearby and made a pretence as though Ramanna had committed suicide, by tying a rope around his neck and fastening itto the tree and hanging the body and thereby they committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Barring the evidence of Obalamma in whose residence the murder is alleged to have taken place and her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Magistrate who is P.W. 15, there is no other connective evidence in this case helpful to the prosecution. However, placing strong reliance on the aspect of motive which is deposed to by the father of Ramanna, who is P.W. 1 and by ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »