Karnataka Court March 2001 Judgments
Smt. M.V. Shanthakumari and Another Vs. Jagalur Taluk Panchayat, Jagal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant345; ILR2001KAR2295; 2001(4)KarLJ541
ORDER1. Though these petitions are posted for consideration of interlocutory application, as per the request of the learned Counsels on both sides, the main matter itself has been taken up for final disposal.2. Writ Petition No. 8470 of 2001 is filed by the Adhyaksha and Writ Petition No. 8846 of 2001 is filed by the Upadhyaksha of Jagalur Taluk Panchayat questioning the validity of the Meeting Notice dated 14-2-2001 issued by the 1st respondent (vide Annexure-F) and for quashing the resolution dated 22-2-2001 accepting the 'No Confidence' Motion against both the petitioners. Since the facts and the question of law raised in both the petitions are the same, both the writ petitions are taken up together for consideration.3. It is undisputed that Jagalur Taluk Panchayat consists of 13 elected members apart from the nominated members as per the provisions of Section 120 of the Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were ele...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lakshmi Vs. Proprietor, Hotel Ajantha, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1465; [2001(91)FLR1170]; ILR2001KAR4048; 2002(4)KarLJ438
Chandrashekaraiah, J. 1. This appeal is by the claimant who filed application claiming compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for the death of her husband one Narasimha.2. The facts in this case are, that the husband of the appellant, Narasimha was working in the respondent's Hotel. On 17-4-1985, when he was sleeping in the Hotel, he was killed by a co-worker, one Sri Nagaraja at about 1.00 a.m. in the night. In this regard, a First Information Report was also given to the jurisdictional police. Thereafter, the appellant-claimant filed an application claiming compensation. The said application was rejected by the Commissioner in the first instance. The said order was set aside by this Court in the miscellaneous first appeal and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry to the Commissioner. Again, after remand, the Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the appellant on two grounds. Firstly, he has held that the deceased Narasimha was not a workman, Secondl...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna and Co. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: [2001]124STC423(Kar)
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the petitioners learned counsel as well as the learned Government Advocate on merits. The learned Government Advocate to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.2. We do not propose to deal with either the facts or the merits of the case because of the fact that after hearing the learned Advocates on both sides, we are of the view that it is necessary to remand the proceedings to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for the reasons set out. We need to clarify that at the admission stage itself, this petition was heard for some time by the earlier Bench. Pursuant to the change of assignment, the present Bench has reheard the learned Advocates on both sides once again on merits. Since this petition was only for admission, the rule of this case being part heard, does not strictly apply. In any case, no prejudice has been caused to either of the parties.3. The two-fold reasons canvassed before us was to the effect that in the first instance, since th...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. Radha Arun
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3561
Mohammed Anwar, J.1. By the above appeal, the appellant herein intends to challenge the Interim Order dated 30-1-2001 of the Family Court, Bangalore city made in G & WC No. 3/2000, rejecting appellant's application i.e., I.A. No. 13 that was made therein by him praying that the learned Judge of the Family Court may be pleased to take action against respondent herein for her prosecution for the offences under Sections 191 and 193 of IPC for the reasons stated in his accompanying affidavit.2. The facts appearing from record in this appeal may be stated as under :-The parties hereto are husband and wife. They are hereinafter referred to as such. Their marriage was stated to have taken place somewhere in 1983. It was a love marriage. At that point of time both parties were appeared to be in a some what well off situation. Both are graduates. Husband is a graduate of Bihar University. Whereas, the wife prosecuted her studies from Delhi University. She has done her post-graduation from that ...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. Mrs. Radha Arun
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC84; ILR2001KAR4925
Mohamed Anwar, J.1. By the above appeal, the appellant herein intends to challenge the interim order dated 30.1.2001 of the Family Court, Bangalore City made in G and WC No. 3/2000, rejecting appellant's application i.e., LA. No. 13 that was made therein by him praying that the learned Judge of the Family Court may be pleased to take action against respondent herein for her prosecution for the offences under Sections 191 and 193 of I.P.C. for the reasons stated in his accompanying affidavit.2. The facts appearing from record in this appeal may be stated as under :The parties hereto are husband and wife. They are hereinafter referred to as such. Their marriage was stated to have taken place somewhere in 1983. It was a love marriage. At that point of time both parties were appeared to be in a somewhat well off situation. Both are graduates. Husband is a graduate of Bihar University, whereas, the wife prosecuted her studies from Delhi University. She has done her post graduation from that...
Tag this Judgment!Arya Vysya Srirama Co-operative Society Limited, Shimoga and Others Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR2524
ORDERThe Court1. Issue rule.These writ petitions are taken up with the consent of parties for final disposal. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General for the State.2. The petitioners, in these writ petitions, challenge various amendments introduced into the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').3. The easiest way to understand the case would be to extract the unamended sections and the amended sections of the Act side by side. Only the relevant sub-sections are extracted for the sake of brevity.Unamended ActAmended Act by Act No. 25 of 19981.1. Section 17(1)(c)(c)Carries on business of the kind carried on by such Cooperative Society.1. Section 17(1)(c)(c) Carries on(or any of his near relation carries on) business of the kind carried on bysuch Co-operative Society.2.2. Section 29-C(1)(c) (c) He carries ona business of the kind carried on by such Co-operative Society or by aCo-operative Society of which s...
Tag this Judgment!N. Vijaya Raghavan Vs. K. Sharada
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant300
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. The applicant had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking for a decree of divorce by dissolving his marriage with the respondent. The trial Court i.e., the Family Court, after considering the matter in detail, held that the petitioner, before it, failed to prove that the respondent, after solemnization of the marriage, treated him with carely and it further observed that in view of the said findings, petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed and dismissed the petition with this finding vide judgment and Order dated 7-10-1999. Hence, the husband-petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.2. During the pendency of the appeal, it appears, on some mistaken advise, a joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed as a miscellaneous application in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 5073/1999. This appeal was filed on 8-3-2000. This application LA. IV along with the appeal ha...
Tag this Judgment!North West Karnataka Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Kumar Anand Irappa Belawad ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ2087
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The appellant Corporation questions the quantum of compensation granted raising only one ground in the memorandum of grounds.2. Though there is objection by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no ground at all, therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed in limine in the absence of any grounds, I disagree with him. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 which are extracted below are the two grounds made out in the appeal.(4) The judgment and award of the court below is contrary to law and facts of the case.(5) That the Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 90,720 under the head loss of earnings by wrongly applying the multiplier method to a case of injuries and on the notional assumption of income of the respondent at Rs. 1,200 per month even though he was a student and aged 10 years at the time of the accident.3. It is the settled law that the entire argument need not be made as grounds of the appeal and it is enough that the judgment and award is contrary to l...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmibai and anr. Vs. Manager, Vijayanand Roadlines Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-2001
Reported in: 2002ACJ1413
Chandrashekaraiah, J.1. Appellants are the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation for the accident occurred to one Suresh Ghodke, son of appellant No. 1 and husband of appellant No. 2.2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants in this appeal is that the appellants are entitled for compensation as per the Amendment Act introduced in the year 1995 to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Commissioner taking into consideration that the death is prior to the Amendment Act has awarded the compensation in accordance with law that was prevailing as on the date of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Commissioner is not right in awarding compensation under the unamended Act in view of the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Venkataraju : (1999)IILLJ272Kant . This court in the above decision has held that the amendment introduced by substi...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramaiah Vs. Nagaraj S. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant395; ILR2001KAR3466; 2001(4)KarLJ12
R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his application for impleading (I.A. No. VIII) in Probate C.P. No. 8 of 1998 pending on the file of this Court, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. The appellant (N. Ramaiah) is the brother of one Anjanamma. The said Anjanamma was the widow, and the respondent herein (S. Nagaraj) is the nephew (brother's son), of one Muni Narayanappa. The respondent herein (S. Nagaraj) filed Probate C.P. No. 8 of 1998 for grant of letters of administration in regard to a Will dated 11-1-1998 said to have been executed by the Muni Narayanappa. The said Will was contested by Anjanamma, widow of Muni Narayanappa, inter alia on the grounds that the said Will was a got up document, and that she had succeeded to the properties of Muni Narayanappa as his sole legal heir. 3. In the said proceedings, the said S. Nagaraj filed I.A. No. I on 16-3-1998 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain Anjanamma from alienating/encumbering the properties, or...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »