Karnataka Court September 2000 Judgments
M.S. Krishnappa and Another Vs. Capt. M.A. Madappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ34; ILR2000KAR4701; 2001(2)KarLJ309
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, by consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, they are clubbed for the purpose of disposal, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. In all these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. the accused persons have challenged the order of the learned Magistrate, Madikeri dated 5-5-2000 taking cognizance of the offence alleged punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issue of notice to them and prayed this Court to quash the same.3. The facts leading to filing of these petitions are these:The respondents herein presented separate complaints under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. read with Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act inter alia alleging that the Vijaya Group of Companies is a limited Company registered under the Companies Act, having its Head Office at Bangalore and several branches throughout Karnataka. The 1st accus...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4649; 2001(1)KarLJ560
ORDER1. This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore, arises out of and is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Principal Civil Judge at Mangalore in LAC No. 4 of 1995, dated 31-1-1997. The facts of the case in brief leading up to this appeal are as follows:The land belonging to the respondents comprised in Sy. No. 102/1 of Permannur village, Mangalore, measuring 5 acres 33 cents was notified for acquisition for grant of house sites to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as the 'House Sites Act'). Preliminary notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was issued on 27-3-1991 and published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 4-4-1991. The final notification under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act was issued on 8-5-1991 and published in the Gazette dated 17-5-1991. The claimants appeared before the Land Acquisition O...
Tag this Judgment!Shrinivas Vs. Venkatesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4595; 2001(2)KarLJ77
ORDERAshok Bhan, Actg. CJ.1. It is a sad and deplorable tale where a member of the legal profession is found guilty of abuse of the process of Court; deliberate withholding of material facts from the Court, resulting in causing unnecessary harassment and expense to the respondent who belongs to the lower strata of the society.2. The complainant Shrinivas is a resident of U.S.A. This petition has been filed through the Special Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Prahlad, his brother who is an Advocate and resident of Bijapur. The complainant being the owner of the shop filed eviction petition under Section 21(f) read with Section 51(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the respondent herein, in the Court of Principal Munsiff, Bijapur in HRC No. 59 of 1974. The respondent filed objections contending that he had inherited the tenancy rights after the death of his father Thimmaiah who was a tenant under the landlord and in the alternative that he was not a ten...
Tag this Judgment!A. Narasimhamurthy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4761; 2001(2)KarLJ313
ORDERB.N. Mallikarjuna, J.1. Petitioner is common in these two petitions and he has sought for quashing the common order of respondent 4-Deputy Commissioner dated 18-4-2000, Annexure-C is the order. Therefore, this common order would dispose of both the petitions. 2. When the matter came up for hearing for admission on 2-8-2000, emergent notice regarding rule was ordered for respondent 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader took notice and appeared for respondents 1, 2 and 4, respondent 3 is served but he had remained absent. The matter is therefore taken up for final disposal. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, perused the papers. 3. Briefly stated the facts are: Certain land ad-measuring 4 acres in Sy. No. 60 of Byradenahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District undisputably was granted under Darkast in favour of respondent 3-Gun-dappa on 29-7-1966 and it would appear that thereafter khata was c...
Tag this Judgment!Naganath and ors. Vs. Common Cadre Committee and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR1716; (2001)ILLJ655Kant
1. The appellants have been working as Secretaries of the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies (in short 'the Primary Societies') of Bidar District. In 1994 they filed an application before the Labour Court Gulbarga under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the I.D. Act') seeking a direction against the respondent-1. 'The Common Cadre Committee, Bidar District' (in short 'the Committee') for payment of bonus at the rate of 33% from the date of their appointment in terms of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (in short 'the Bonus Act'). The said application was numbered as Application No. 3/94. It was ultimately allowed by an award dated March 15, 1993 (Annexure-F) in the following terms:'The application of 167 applicants is allowed. They are entitled for minimum bonus at the rate of 33% from the date of their appointment on the basis of annual wages from the respondent-Bank.'2. The validity of the above award was assailed by the District Central Co-oper...
Tag this Judgment!Prudential Engineers and ors. Vs. Kuskoor Bharath Ram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2000
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4617
ORDERMajage, J. 1. In this Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., the petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No. 34601/2000 on the file of the Court of XVI Additional C.M.M., Bangalore City, have challenged initiation of said proceedings against them.2. According to the respondent - complainant, he had agreed to purchase an apartment bearing No. 1001 in 'Prudential Pavan' a property to be developed in 16th -B Main, HAL II Stage, Kodihalli, Bangalore City, from the accused (which is a partnership firm with 4 partners) and paid a sum of Rs. 7,10,000/- in that regard on 31/ 01/1998, but, as the work undertaken by the petitioners - accused was found tardy and substandard and delivery of the possession of the flat was postponed from time to time on untenable grounds, he had no alternative except to terminate the agreement to purchase that flat and accordingly terminating the agreement, demanded back Rs. 7,10,000/- paid to the accused and in that connection, he was given three cheques, o...
Tag this Judgment!M. Achutan Vs. Mrs. CarmIn Leena Noronha and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4520; 2001(2)KarLJ339
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. Both these second revision petitions are filed by the common landlord under Section 115 of the CPC to challenge the common orders passed by the II Additional District Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore in Revision Petition Nos. 133 and 134 of 1990. In passing the said order, the learned II Additional District Judge while allowing both the rent revision petitions filed under Section 50 of the Rent Control Act by the tenants, setting aside the common judgment dated 2-4-1990 in co-relating H.R.C. Petition Nos. 133 and 134 of 1988 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Mangalore, in allowing both the petitions under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act while rejecting the ground under Section 21(1)(o) of the Act insofar as the same related to the second eviction petition. The learned District Judge in allowing both the first revision petitions before him had also dismissed the original eviction petitions in H.R.C. Nos. 133 and 134 of 1988.2. For the purpose...
Tag this Judgment!Swan Silk Limited Vs. Appellate Authority Under Industrial Employment ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ341Kant
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. This writ petition is to quash the order of the Appellate Authority under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore dated November 8, 1996 which order is filed at Annexure-B to the writ petition, insofar as it relates to deletion of Clauses 12.1, 17, 18, 27.11 and 36 and the modification of Clause 16.2 are concerned.2. The management who is the petitioner herein has challenged the above order. It is their case that the Standing Orders were submitted for certification before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Certifying Officer, Bangalore Region No. 1, Bangalore. The second respondent union filed objections and after hearing both the parties the Certifying Officer passed an order on February 3, 1996 allowing certain modification. The union, preferred an appeal against such certification and on the appeal the Industrial Tribunal passed the impugned order deleting the clauses concerning transfer and modifying t...
Tag this Judgment!N.G. Narayanaswamy Vs. M/S. Vijayanand Roadlines Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ211
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. The short question which calls for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is whether a complaint for initiating criminal proceedings against the accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short), is maintainable in law in the absence of a notice to the drawer of the cheque as required under Section 138(2) of the Act.2. Brief facts for consideration are these :The complainant presented a complaint under Section 200, Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the Act alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act with a further request to order for payment of compensation out of the fine amount under Section 357, Cr.P.C. The complainant is a Limited Company carrying on business of transportation and are leading parcel carriers in Northern and Southern parts of India. Their office is situate at Hubli. One of the Directors of the Company is authorised by the Man...
Tag this Judgment!Manappa Vs. Yellamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC655
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard Mr. Shivakumar Kallur, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.6.1999 whereby the Family Court Judge at Raichur, had allowed the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the respondents 1 to 3. The present respondents 1 to 3 are. the wife and two minor children (namely 2nd respondent is the daughter and the 3rd respondent is the son) of the revision petitioner. According to the applicant, present revision petitioner and respondent No. 1 were legally married according to the customs prevailing in their community 16 years ago and that from their wedlock, two children were born. According to the respondent No. 1, the relationship between her and her husband got deteriorated as the husband developed bad habits and started ill-treating wife and, ultimately, the husband/revision petitioner threw the wife and children out of his house. According to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »