Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003]115CompCas698(Kar); ILR2002KAR2555; 2002(3)KarLJ487
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 15th April, 1997 made in Execution Case No. 228 of 1994 by the Court of Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar, rejecting the application filed by her under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code.2. Facts, which are not in serious dispute, may briefly be stated as hereunder:(a) The first respondent, in this appeal, is a Nationalised Bank and has obtained preliminary decree dated 22nd July, 1992 in O.S. No. 80 of 1989, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Sagar, against respondents 2 and 3, who were the defendants in the suit and who will hereinafter be referred to as the judgment-debtors, for a sum of Rs. 1,27,086.90 along with interest at 14 per cent per annum from the date of grant of the loan to the judgment-debtors till the date of realisation. The pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2002]110CompCas575(Kar)
H.L. Dattu, J. 1. The petitioner as well as the respondent arc companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). 2. The petitioner-company had entered into a lease agreement with the respondent-company for lease of machinery. A copy of the agreement is also filed along with the company petition. Under the agreement itself, the amount payable by the respondent-company for making use of the machineries supplied by the petitioner-company was indicated. Since there was default in payment of the rentals towards the machineries, the petitioner-company had sent several letters, inter alia, requesting the respondent-company to pay the rentals due, for having supplied the machinery. AH these letters were received by the respondent-company. In fact, the respondent-company has accepted the liability in those correspondences. 3. Since the respondent-company had not paid the amount due to the petitioner-company, the petitioner-company was constrained to issue a sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2117; 2002(4)KarLJ48
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J.1. In these petitions for a writ of certiorari, the petitioners assail the validity of a notification issued by the Mangalore Urban Development Authority under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, insofar as the same pertains to the land owned by the petitioners. The challenge arises in the following circumstances.2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of different parcels of land in different survey numbers of Village Padavu in Mangalore Taluk of Dakshina Kannada District. In terms of a notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act mentioned above, an area measuring 15 acres and 57 cents in all comprising different survey numbers including those owned by the petitioners was notified for acquisition by the Mangalore Urban Development Authority. This was followed by a notification under Section 19(1) of the said Act, the validity whereof was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 26185 to 26192 of 2001 f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(4)KarLJ196
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. The respondent-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has directed the closure of an industrial unit established in a residential locality of Nelamangala town on the ground that the same violates the permissible noise levels for residential areas. The petitioners have in the present petition assailed the said direction on several grounds, to which I shall advert after briefly setting out the facts in the backdrop whereof the challenge is mounted.2. The petitioners are husband and wife. They own a residential premises situated within the town municipal limits of Nelamangala. They appear to have secured from the Municipal Council a licence to install power-looms in the said premises, which they have been operating for the past nearly ten years. On receipt of a complaint from the residents of the area that the operation of the power-looms causes noise pollution and results in inconvenience and discomfort to the residents, the Assistant Environmental Officer, T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2262; 2002(4)KarLJ385
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. These matters have been taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned Counsels for both the parties. 2. In these petitions the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 8-3-1999 in Case Nos. 40 and 41 of 1998-99 passed by the first respondent confirming the order dated 17-1-1996 made in Case No. LND.RUC.CR 116/1995-96 by the 2nd respondent, cancelling the grant of land measuring 20 guntas in Sy. No. 14, Block No. 13. 1 acre 9 guntas in Sy. No. 14, Block No. 14 and 1 guntas in Sy. No. 14, Block No. 12 of Bommanahalli, respectively, in favour of the petitioners granted by the Land Grant Committee by resolution dated 18-1-1993. 3. The petitioners herein are the unauthorised cultivators of the land measuring acre, 1 acre 9 guntas and 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy. No. 14 of Bommanahalli Village, Hebber Hobli. Tumkur Taluk, since from several years along with similarly situated persons. The petitioners have filed applications under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2002)ACC738; 2002ACJ1873; ILR2002KAR1955; 2002(3)KarLJ356
1. These two miscellaneous appeals are before us pursuant to a reference made by a Single Bench of this Court. The appeals arise out of orders passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 awarding compensation to the claimants for injuries sustained by them in two separate motor accidents. The Commissioner, it appears, has determined the compensation on the basis of the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as amended by Act 30 of 3995 no matter the accidents in question had taken place earlier to the commencement of the amending Act. The insurance Company has assailed the said orders inter alia contending that the very basis on which the amounts have been determined by the Commissioner was erroneous, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board Another v Valsala K. and Another, : (1999)IILLJ1112SC where the Court has authoritatively held that the amending Act was only prospective in its operation. 2. When the appeals ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(1)ALT(Cri)47; ILR2002KAR2909; 2002(4)KarLJ292
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Since common questions of law on the basis of identical facts were raised by the Advocates appearing for the petitioners, after hearing both the parties, these petitions are disposed off by this order.2. The brief facts of the case in Cri. P. No. 3650 of 1999 are that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that they are attached to Navodaya Sahakara Bank Limited, Malleswaram, Bangalore in one capacity or the other and they committed fraudulent acts in their dealing with the Bank, thereby defrauding the Bank to the extent of Rs. 80 lakhs and therefore, the in charge Secretary of the Bank filed a complaint against the partners/proprietors of those business establishments in P.C.R. No. 381 of 1998 on the file of the 7th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City alleging that they committed offence punishable under Sections 403, 420, 464, 511 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Court was pleased to refer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(4)KarLJ10
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioners herein have questioned the validity of notifications dated 11-4-1995 and 11-9-1997 (Annexure-A and C) issued under Subsections (1) and (4) of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (Karnataka Act No. 18 of 1966) (in short, 'the Act') by which the lands of the petitioners have been acquired for the purpose of 'Development' within the meaning of Clause (5) of Section 2 of the Act.2. The petitioners herein are the joint owners of land bearing No. 458/2, measuring 3 acres 4 guntas of Bhyridevarakoppa, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District. The State Government had issued the preliminary notification dated 11-4-1995 (Annexure-A) under Section 28(1) of the Act declaring its intention to acquire certain extents of land including those of the petitioners. Subsequent to publication of the notification, the 2nd respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer served notice upon the petitioners, who are the owners of the land sought to be acq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2235; 2002(3)KarLJ424
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The short question involved in this writ petition is:Whether a person who has a privilege in a Government land known as kumkidar's privilege, has to be heard by the Tahsildar while granting permission under Section 90-A of the land Revenue Act, to lay the pipeline for the supply of water from one land to another2. The petitioners and the respondents are the close relatives. The 5th respondent filed an application before the Tahsildar, Puttur, under Section 90-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, seeking permission to lay a pipeline through the Government land, namely Sy. No. 57/2 of Paduvannoor Village of Puttur Taluk.3. The said application was allowed. The respondent 5, has been permitted to lay the pipeline at a depth of 2l/a ft. from the ground level in Government land bearing Sy. No. 57/2, in order to supply the water to the land of the 5th respondent situated in Sy. No. 58/2A.4. The order of the Tahsildar was challenged by the petitioners herein by filin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR1785; 2002(4)KarLJ152
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal by the accused in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1991 is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, dated 6-12-1995 wherein the accused-appellant have been found guilty of offence for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 450, 323 and 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and have been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo further Rl for three months for the offence punishable under Section 450 read with Section 34, IPC, and to undergo SI for two months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to undergo RI for six months.2. The facts of the case in brief leading upto this appeal are as follows:The accused herein stood charged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, on t...
Tag this Judgment!