Karnataka Court February 2001 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Pundalik Kamath Vs. Periyaswamy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3241; 2001(5)KarLJ349
ORDERThe Court1. The petitioner in this petition claims to be the owner of land hearing Sy. No. 144/1C measuring 24 cents situated in Bala Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District.2. In this revision petition filed under Section 12-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 3rd December, 1988 made in No. LRA (H) 212:87 MAS by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Authority'), registering respondents 1 and 2 in respect of dwelling-houses situated in the said land along with the appurtenant land as its owner.3. A few facts which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows:The respondents 1 and 2 on coming into force of Section 38 of the Act by means of Act No. 1 of 1979 filed Form No. 2-A seeking to register them as owners of the dwelling-houses occupied by them along with the appurtenant land. The ap...
Shivram M. Vs. Enforcement Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: [2001(91)FLR1015]; ILR2001KAR5516; (2001)IILLJ1190Kant
K.R. Prasada Rao, J.1. All these petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the third accused in C.C. Nos. 3865 of 1996, 3866 of 1996 and 3867 of 1997 pending on the file of the Court of JMFC II Court, Shimoga, for the offences under Sections 14-A and 14(1-A) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act'), read with Para 76(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the averments found in all these complaints against the petitioner concerned is that, he is a director of A-1/company and he was responsible for the conduct of business and that himself, A-2 and A-4 are required to comply with all the provisions of the Act. He submitted that the said averments in the complaint are not sufficient to make the present petitioner who is A-3, vicariously liable for the abovesaid offences committed by A-1/company represented by the Assistant General Manager....
Sharada Properties, Bangalore and ors. Vs. Nirmal Kumar Misra and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3901; 2001(6)KarLJ203
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners who are the accused in C.C. No. 8478 of 1999 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City seeking for quashing the above proceedings pending against them for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 ofthe Indian Penal Code by the impugned order dated 14-7-1999 passed by the learned Magistrate.2. The respondents herein filed a complaint in the Trial Court against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that they have entered into an agreement dated 13-5-1997 with the respondents according to the terms of which the first petitioner undertook to procure 1/11th undivided share in the site bearing No. 15, Khata No. 497/2 situated in Gurukamathanapalya, K.R. Puram, Bangalore for a consideration of Rs. 87,000.00. The respondents granted the right to construct a residential flat either di...
S.M. Sadanandaiah Vs. the Returning Officer, Baramasagara Reserved Ass ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant428; ILR2001KAR1314; 2001(6)KarLJ522
ORDERThe Court 1. Petitioner's nomination from assembly constituency No. 43, Baramasagar, reserved for Scheduled Castes in the election for the Legislative Assembly of the State was rejected by the Returning Officer by his order dated 19-8-1999, on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste. Petitioner after the announcement of poll results, in this election petition, challenges the election of second respondent from No. 43, Baramasagara reserved constituency, on the ground,if not for improper rejection of his nomination papers by Returning Officer, he would have been successful candidate for the State Legislative Assembly.2. Pursuant to the notification calling for applications for election to No. 43, Baramasagar reserved Assembly Constituency, petitioner had filed his nomination papers along with the copy of the caste certificate issued in Form No. 1 by the Tahsildar of the area, certifying that the petitioner belongs to 'Beda Jangama Caste', which is considere...
Mallanna Alias Appaiah Vs. Smt. Muninanjamma Alias Nanjamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant205
The Court1. The appellant-plaintiff has preferred this regular second appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6-1-1995 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District in R.A. No. 64 of 1994 setting aside the judgment and decree of the II Principal Munsiff, Bangalore, dated 19-7-1994 in O.S. No. 542 of 1989 urging on various grounds.2. The appellant filed Original Suit in No. 130 of 1989 on 4-3-1989 for eviction of the respondent from the suit schedule property. The respondent in turn filed the O.S. No. 542 of 1989 on 9-8-1989 for specific performance of the Sale Agreement. In respect of these two original suits, trial was held separately, both the original suits were clubbed together, common judgment was passed and decrees were drawn separately. The respondent preferred one appeal against the common judgment and decree in respect of the decree passed in O.S. No. 130 of 1989. The contention of the appellant's Counsel that, the Court below has erroneously allowed ...
Nijalingappa Vs. Siddappa Mallappa Gadigeppagol and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ234
ORDERThe Court 1. The learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the State. By consent, the petitions are taken up for final disposal, heard and disposed of by this order. 2. These writ petitions are directed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur Sub-Division, Bijapur dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner herein in Form 7-A under the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (Act 23 of 1998), in exercise of the delegated powers. 3. A few facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as under: The writ petitioner has alleged that Survey No. 517 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas and Survey No. 518 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas including phut kharab of 2 guntas situated within the village limits of Chim-malgi, Basavana Bagewadi Taluk in Bijapur District belong to respondents 1 to 4. Both are tenanted lands. The petitioner was in actual possession and cultivation of these lands as tenant on lavani basis. He continued to be i...
Mudakappa Veerappa WaddIn Vs. the Superintendent of Police, Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR3071; 2001(5)KarLJ444
ORDERThe Court1. The petitioner has questioned the Memo dated 11-5-1987 issued by the 1st respondent and also the cognizance taken by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Spl. (SVC) CC No. 5 of 1995 for the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.2. The brief facts are as follows:After the retirement of the petitioner as Deputy Conservator of Forests in respect of disproportionate acquisition of properties to his known source of income was noticed and the Superintendent of Police by his Memo dated 11-5-1987 authorised Sri Y.B. Patil, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Dharwad to investigate into the matter under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Police Inspector, after completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet for the said offence before the Sessions Court, Dharwad which came to be registered as Spl. (SVC) CC No. 5 of 1995. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the alleged offe...
Workmen of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Specialised Watch Case Divisio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2001
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR452]; ILR2001KAR1502; (2001)ILLJ1449Kant
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. In this Writ Petition the question raised is with respect to the interpretation of Section 3 of the Payment of Bonus Act hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Petitioner is representing the workers of HMT Specialised Watch Case Division manufacturing specialised watch cases. This unit was started in 1983. It is alleged that bonus was not paid to the workers for the years 1983 and 1984 on the ground that the factory in question is a separate new establishment which is not making any profit. A dispute was raised which resulted in reference to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the unit is being run as a separate establishment and as such in the light of Section 16(1A), as the Unit did not make profit during the relevant year, the workers are not entitled for bonus. The workers contended that it being only a division of H.M.T. it cannot be assigned the status of a separate establishment to claim the exclusion from the payment of bonus. That order ...
Amba Alias Ambicadevi and ors. Vs. V. Sowbhagyamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ536; [2001(91)FLR876]; ILR2001KAR4700; 2002(1)KarLJ548
The Court 1. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the owner of the lorry, to challenge the order dated 30-4-1997 in case No. LOD:WCR:CR 68/96, insofar as the same related to fastening the liability with regardto payment of penalty and interest to the extent of Rs. 1,03,990/-, 50% of the total award of Rs. 2,07,980/- awarded under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, henceforth for convenience 'the Act', by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Davanagere, henceforth in brief referred as the 'WCC. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants had taken me in brief to the facts of the case. They are as hereunder: That one Malleshappa, the husband of the respondent 1 and father of the respondent 2, was the driver under one Sri B.L. Shivappa, the husband of the appellant 1 and father of the appellants 2 to 4. The said Malleshappa died on 28-4-1996 in an accident. The L.Rs of the deceased Malleshappa, the respondents 1 and 2 herein have claimed an award of R...
Smt. Durgabai and Others Vs. the Employees' State Insurance Corporatio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-07-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ975; 2001(4)KarLJ242
1. This appeal arises out of an order under Section 75(1)(g) of the ESI Act in E.S.I. Application No. 26 of 1995 on the file of ESI Court, Bangalore, dated 18-8-1998.2. The brief facts that led to the filing of this appeal are as under:One Mr. P. Madhavan was working as traffic in charge at the main office of the 3rd respondent herein i.e., Prakash Roadlines Limited. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent is dealing with transport business.3. According to the applicants/appellants on 8-7-1994 Mr. Madhavan left the house for duty and when he was near Chikkabidarakallu bus stop, he sustained heart attack. He was shifted to the house and the Medical Officer of the Company declared him as dead due to heart attack. It was also the case of the appellants that the death has occurred when the deceased left for his duty and on the enroute which was the usual route. Therefore, they approached ESI Corporation for the compensation which was refused by the Corporation as the death was not in the course and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »