Karnataka Court February 2002 Judgments
Smt. P. Venkatalakshmamma and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2354; 2002(3)KarLJ582
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J. 1. Common questions of law arise for consideration in all these petitions, which shall stand disposed off by this common order.2. In terms of a preliminary notification dated 16th of December, 1999 published in the Government Gazette on 20th of January, 2000 and issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act an area measuring 37 acres situate in Sy. Nos. 19/2, 20, 37/1 and 37/2 of village Kengeri was notified for acquisition for the construction of a treatment plant by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed on 13th of February, 2001, which was published in the Government Gazette on 8th of March, 2001. Aggrieved by the said declaration, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions challenging the validity of the same.3. I have heard Counsels for the parties at length.4. The challenge to the impugned acquisition proceedings is threefold. Firstly, it is argued that the declaration under Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Madivala (Deceased) by L.Rs and ors. Vs. Kuddu Madivala and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3417; 2002(3)KarLJ645
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The petitioners have questioned the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Udupi (Dakshina Kannada), passed in L.R.A. No. 1270 of 1988, dated 2/3-1-1989, modifying the order of the Land Tribunal to grant occupancy right only in respect of respondent 1-Kuddu Madivala.2. The brief facts are as follows:The respondent 1-Kuddu Madivala filed Fonn 7 on 30-12-1974, claiming occupancy in respect of 16 cents of land in Survey No. 82/5 of Shivalli Village and also in respect of other extent of land, which is not the subject-matter in this revision. On filing of the Form 7, public notices were issued. The owners namely, Sulochana Bhat and Ramakrishna Acharya were notified. The Land Tribunal recorded the evidence of the applicant Shri Kuddu Madivala. After considering the relevant records the Land Tribunal, Udupi, by its order dated 19-8-1981 granted occupancy in favour of the family to the extent of 16 cents in Survey No. 82/5. It appears after the occupancy...
Tag this Judgment!J.R. Rama Murthy Vs. Kannada Vishwavidyalaya, Hampi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3150; 2002(3)KarLJ623
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. Though the matter is listed in the orders list, by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties to the lis, it is taken up for final hearing.2. A Chief Librarian working in the respondent-Kannada Vishwavidyanilaya (the University' for short), situate at Hampi, Hospet, Bellary, contends in this writ petition, that he should be retired from the services of the respondent-University only after he attains 60 years of age. But, the University authorities have informed him by their communication dated 31-10-2001, that he shall retire from the services of the University on attaining the age of 58 years. The lis that requires to be decided by this Court is whether Chief Librarian should be placed on par with the teachers' of the University and he should be permitted to retire from the services of the University only after attaining the age of 60 years which is the age of superannuation for the teachers working in the University?3. Before I advert to the fact...
Tag this Judgment!Karibasamma and anr. Vs. Mahalingappa A. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2374; 2002(4)KarLJ97
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. This civil revision petition is by the decree-holder in H.R.C. Nos. 13 and 16 of 1994 challenging the order dated 28-11-2001 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Davanagere in Misc. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1998 allowing the application filed by the first respondent herein under Order 21, Rules 98(1)(a), 99 and 100 read with Section 151 of the CPC.2. The petitioners being the decree-holders in H.R.C. Nos. 13 and 16 of 1994 instituted execution proceedings for possession of the schedule premises. In the said proceedings, the petitioners have taken possession on 10-3-1998. The case of the first respondent is that he is the owner in possession of the property and he has been illegally dispossessed in execution of the said decree even though there is no decree against him in the original H.R.C, proceedings. Therefore, the respondent 1 has made an application under Order 21, Rules 98(1)(a), 99 and 100 read with Section 151 of the CPC for restoration of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR296]; ILR2002KAR2284; 2002(4)KarLJ394
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. The appellant-management has filed this writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 7790 of 1999, dated 24-7-2001 wherein the learned Single Judge modified the order of the Labour Court imposing punishment of withholding of four increments.2. It is alleged that on 30-1-1996 the respondent-workman, who is a conductor, was conducting the bus bearing No. MEF 6012 on Kadur-Be-lagur-Panchanahalli route and the regional line checking squad intercepted the bus. It was found that about 78 adult passengers were travelling in the bus. Out of them a group of 20 passengers, were neither issued tickets nor fare was collected from them. The articles of charge dated 26-2-1996 was issued Disciplinary Authority initiated an enquiry. On considering the materials and also the fact that the respondent-workman was involved in 14 other default cases, the Enquiry Officer held the respondent-workman guilty of the irregularities of non-issuance of tickets and ...
Tag this Judgment!State Through Deputy Superintendent of Police Vs. Shivappa Bhimappa Pa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC611; 2003(2)KarLJ171
1. The first of these two criminal appeals has been preferred by the State and it assails the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and also for enhancement of the sentence awarded for the conviction under Sections 498-A and 304-B, IPC. The companion Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1997 having been preferred by the appellant-Shivappa Bhimappa Pathat who was the original accused before the Trial Court, assails the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused by the Trial Court which had imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 304-B, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, both sentences to run concurrently.2. We have heard both appeals together and we have also done a total review of the evidence on record. We propose to briefly summarise the submissions canvassed under the different heads only to the extent that is material for the present ju...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhayalal Hukumatrai Banawani Since Dead by Lrs. and ors. Vs. Keshav ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3443
ORDER 41 RULE 33--1st respondent nottransposed as one of the Appellants nor he filed regularAppeal--4th respondent whether entitled to questionthe findings of the Trial Court though she was not partyin Trial Court--Held--Since there is transfer of propertyin favour of the 4th respondent, she had interest in itand had right to question the findings of the Trial Courtunder Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. Inspite of the fact that therebeing no appeal filed by 4th respondent, her interestcould have been defended in the case.Appeal allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Basavanneppa Shivappa Haveri Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1497; 2002(3)KarLJ463
1. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 24330 of 1992 has preferred this writ appeal. 2. The facts, very briefly, are the tenant was in possession of agricultural land as a cultivating tenant with respect to 18 acres 16 guntas in Sy. No. 816 and 12 acres 18 guntas in Sy. No. 827/1. The appellant filed Form 7 for conferment of occupancy rights. The Land Tribunal by an order dated 19-2-1998 rejected the claim of the appellant. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the Appellate Authority was abolished and the appeal was subsequently registered as C.P. No. 31 of 1990 and renumbered as W.P. No. 24330 of 1992. 3. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant himself has mentioned in Form 7 that the owner of the land is not the landlord but is the receiver appointed by the Munsiff Court. 4. The learned Single Judge after referring to this aspect of the case held that th...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Rubber Products, Bangalore Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant335; 2002(4)KarLJ529
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. Petitioner is a small-scale industry engaged in the manufacture of moulded, extruded rubber components, shoe soles and rubber lining of tanks, vessels, pulleys etc. Power was sanctioned to the petitioner in terms of Annexure-A. An agreement has been entered into between the parties in terms of Annexure-B. Petitioner further states that due to energy shortage, 25% energy cut was imposed in terms of Annexure-C. Petitioner has filed Annexure-D evidencing the power failure from time to time. Petitioner has also produced a record pertaining to the power cut for the period September and October 1994 as per Annexure-E and F. Petitioner states that petitioner wrote a letter in terms of Annexure-G in which it is stated that the petitioner is not to pay the charges in the light of power shortage. However in view of the threat of disconnection he has made payment under protest. Petitioner has also filed statement in terms of Annexures-K. With this material petitioner is b...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. M. Muniraju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant287; ILR2002KAR2923; 2003(1)KarLJ291
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These second appeals are filed by the defendants-State Government and others questioning the legality and correctness of the judgments and decrees passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District, in R.A. Nos. 39 and 1 to 3 of 1997 affirming the judgments and decrees passed in O.S. Nos. 237 of 1996, 481, 399 and 479 of 1993 respectively by the Principal Munsiff, Bangalore and sought for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed in the regular appeals and original suits respectively.2. The cause of action for institution of the original suits, except the O.S. No. 237 of 1996, the judgment and decree of which challenged is in R.S.A. No. 960 of 1997, is one and the same. The reliefs sought for in these appeals is one and the same. Except in the O.S. No. 237 of 1996filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and consequential relief ofpermanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, the otheroriginal suits...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »