Karnataka Court September 2000 Judgments
Erappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4706; 2001(3)KarLJ117
ORDER1. Though this petition is posted in order list, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioner in this petition is a freedom fighter and had taken part in the freedom movement as a revolutionary underground worker during the movement of Hyderabad-Nizam State in 1947. There is no dispute on this aspect of the matter.3. In this petition, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the order dated 3rd January, 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-J to the writ petition, passed by the 1st respondent, limiting freedom fighter's pension (hereinafter referred to as 'pension') to the petitioner only from the date of the said order instead of from the date of the application made by the petitioner seeking grant of pension.4. In at order Annexure-J, while accepting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension to the petitioner, the 1st respondent has gran...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad Engineering Sub-division and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant53
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri M. V. Shamanna, learned Government Advocate for the revision petitioners, and Sri Mahesh Wadiar for Sri Mohan Shanthana Goudar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This revision has been filed against the order dt. 24-1-1998 whereby the trial Court has refused to accept the appearance and vakalathnama put up by the Additional Government Pleader, Laxmeshwar, as it did not contain the Advocates' Welfare Fund Stamp which is required by law to be affixed on the Vakalathnama. 3. The learned Government Counsel contended that the Court below acted illegally in rejecting the Vakalathnama and in directing that the case shall be proceeded ex parte. 4. I have perused Section 23 of the Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1983. It will be appropriate at this juncture to quote the same in extenso. 'Section 23. Vakalath to bear stamps.- (1) Every Advocate shall affix one welfare Fund stamp on every vakalath filed by him and no vakalath shall be filed befo...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited, Gowripet, Kolar Vs. Krishnappa and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ1105; 2000(6)KarLJ575
R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. The insurer who had been permitted to contest the claim proceedings under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Tribunal is the appellant in this appeal against the judgment and award dated 27-6-2000 in M.V.C. No. 26 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolar. The first respondent herein was the claimant in the said claim petition. The 2nd respondent herein who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident was the first respondent before the Tribunal. The appellant herein was the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent before the Tribunal who was the driver has not been impleaded in this appeal.2. The claimant filed M.V.C. No. 26 of 1998 alleging that on 17-7-1997 he was riding a scooter bearing No. KA-05/E-7892 near Chatrak-odihalli on the road leading from Kolar - Takel with one C.M. Venkatareddy as a pillion rider; that at that time, a school tempo van bearing No. MEB-3191 came from the opposite di...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. Compa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-2000
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4268
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant in these appeals hired a IBM/370/138 computer from 9-4-1986 under leasing agreement dated 2-5-1986. Under the said agreement, the respondent had agreed to replace the computer by a IBM/370/158 computer after initial period of 4 months. There was delay in replacing the computer and Appellant continued to use the IBM/370/138 system awaiting replacement and continued to pay the rentals. Ultimately, the IBM/370/138 computer was replaced on 5-10-1987 by an IBM/370/158 system and a Second agreement dated 5-11-1987 was entered between the parties covering the leasing of the IBM/370/158 computer for a period of one year from 5-10-1987. The first leasing agreement relating to IBM/370/138 computer came to an end from the. date of leasing of the IBM/370/158 computer from 5-10-1987.2. Under the agreement dated 5-11-1987, the appellant (hereinafter also referred to as HAL ) had agreed to pay a hire charge of Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month For the IBM/370/158 computer ...
Tag this Judgment!Doddabasappa Vs. Gurubasappa (Deceased) by L.Rs. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant149; 2001(4)KarLJ104
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6-6-1998, passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bagalkot, on I.A. No. XI, filed in original suit number O.S. 74 of 1995.By I.A. No. XI, the plaintiff sought the direction against defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 10 to pay the stamp duty and penalty, as provided under Section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act, before its admission and recording of evidence.2. The objection was filed by the defendants contending that defendants are not enforcing the award, and they are using it as defence. Hence, there is no question of payment of stamp duty, and that the document at least can be admitted for collateral purpose of severance of status of the joint family.The Trial Court considered the contentions, and held that the document, marked as Ex. D. 20, shows it requires the payment of stamp duty. The document is styled, as decision of the arbitrator, and certain shares had been allotted to the parties and the well, pumpset have been k...
Tag this Judgment!Munivenkatamma and ors. Vs. Ramaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant292
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri D.S. Hosmath, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri C.B. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision-petition arises from the judgment and order dt. 9-9-1999 passed by the IInd Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in reference case LAC. No. 52/ 97 on LA. under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C., whereby the revision-petitioners had sought their impleadment as parties, alleging that they had also got title over the land in dispute as the land was granted in favour of Ramaiah, present respondent, who is said to be the elder brother of the husband of 1st revision-petitioner, in the capacity as head of joint family. The revision-petitioners contended, in view of the above, they are also entitled to a share in the compensation. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application observing that he has no jurisdiction to decide this question. As such, the application was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the applican...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. Mohammed Yusuf
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ5
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The State of Karnataka has assailed the correctness of an order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent-accused by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Channapatna in Criminal Case No. 971/ 1989. The allegation against the accused was to the effect that he was riding a motor cycle No. MEY 1696 at 7.30 p.m. on 27-4-1989 on the Mysore-Bangalore Highway. A jeep coming in the opposite direction had stopped in front of the Kengal Anjaneya temple and the deceased Umesh who was the driver of the jeep was crossing the highway in order to get to the opposite side for purposes of easing himself. A collision occurred in which Umesh got injured and so did the accused and his companion who was the pillion rider. The injured was taken to hospital and Umesh died two or three days later. The accused was arrested and charged with having committed an offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A and Section 3 Clause (1) read with 112 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. The evidence in th...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3968; 2001(2)KarLJ358
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the validity and correctness of the Notification No. RD 306 LAQ 98, dated 18-12-1998 published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 24-12-1998 issued by the first respondent under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) denotifying the land bearing Sy. Nos. 51/2, 51/3 and 51/5 of Thurahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in all measuring 3 acres and 25 guntas.2. Writ Petition Nos. 6259 and 6260 of 1999 are by the landowners of the lands in question and Writ Petition No. 11327 of 1999 is by the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired. For the sake of convenience the petitioners in this order as, 'the owners' and the petitioner in W.P. No. 11327 of 1999 will be referred to as 'the Housing Society',3. The owners of the lands in question had consented for acquisition of their lands in favour of the Housing Society. In pursuance of the said consent, the Ho...
Tag this Judgment!A.T. Chandrashekar Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4316; 2000(6)KarLJ632
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows:The respondent 1 had framed a scheme in the year 1982 for the purpose of holding departmental examination for promotion to the post of Accountant. This scheme was revised on 17-1-1990 bringing about certain changes in the earlier scheme of the year 1982. The petitioner being fully qualified and eligible to appear in the examination conducted on 29th and 30th August, for purpose of selecting the candidates for promotion to the cadre of Accountant. In the said examination the petitioner was declared to have secured exemption in three papers and the results of the examination were announced as per Annexure-F. Later on, the Managing Director took upon himself the task of reviewing the result declared as per Annexure-F and the revised result was published a...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Vasudeva Mahale and ors. Vs. Executive Engineer, National Hi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Kant95; ILR2000KAR4084
Ashok Bhan, Ag. C.J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions thereby upholding the notification imposing toll tax on the' vehicles crossing Sharavati Bridge issued by the respondent dated 6-8-1997, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Appellants are the residents of Honnavar and other nearby villages and are carrying on respective business in agriculture as mentioned in the cause title. Appellants own vehicles and are required to cross Sharavathi Bridge constructed on National Highway No. 17 across river Sharavathi at 197 K.M. The Bridge in question had been constructed by Government of India through its agency Central PWD on National Highway No. 17 at 197 K.M. The two banks of Sharavathi river at Honnavar are, on one side it is Honnavar and on the other side it is Kasargod and other villages. The bridge is the longest bridge in the State and has been a major link on National Highway No. 17. National Highway No. 17 runs through the coast of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »