Karnataka Court August 2002 Judgments
Pamela Lakshminarayana and ors. Vs. Kamalamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4614; 2002(6)KarLJ182
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J. 1. This is the owners' revision being aggrieved of the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mysore in LRF/MYS/Appeal No. 53 of 1988, dated 26-11-1988 dismissing the appeal by confirming the order of the Land Tribunal, Mysore in KLR No. 1700/74-75 vesting the land with the Government under Section 44 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows.--One Sri Hariyachar was the owner of the lands of different survey numbers situated at Varuna, Janthagalli and Dandikere Village of Mysore Taluk, called as Varuna Estate. In respect of the lands, the tenant namely, Sri R. Chinnaswamy Goundar filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy claiming to be the tenant. But, much prior to the filing of Form 7, Lakshminarayana S/o. Hariyachar initiated legal proceedings for resumption of land under Section 29 of the Mysore Tenancy Act, 1952. The litigation between the owner and the tenant which commenced during 1961 came to an end by an...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Aswathnarayana Setty and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4077; 2003(2)KarLJ335
1. These writ appeals are filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 7-5-2002 dismissing the W.P. Nos. 20194 to 20223 of 2002.2. The necessary and brief facts of the case are:All the piece and parcel of the vacant land of different extents in Sy. No. 49/1 had been notified for acquisition vide preliminary notification dated 6-8-1987. Thereafter, second preliminary notification was issued on 27-2-1990. However, as no final notification could be issued in time the 3rd preliminary notification dated 22-7-1991 was issued under Section 4(1) of, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') (published in Karnataka Gazette on 8-8-1991). W.P. No. 21438 of 1991 was filed challenging the acquisition. Pending writ petition, the final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 15-5-1992 and award was passed on 26-5-1993. The State Government on 5-7-1993 issued a letter not to hand over possession as they are going to pass order under Section 48(1) of the Act a...
Tag this Judgment!Jayalakshmi Reddy Vs. Thippanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR5163; 2003(5)KarLJ263
ORDERB. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the case papers including the impugned order made by the Court below.2. By the impugned order, the Court below has directed the petitioner herein to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 1,450/- with penalty of Rs. 14,500/- for the sale agreement dated 4-11-1995 being admitted in evidence.3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. The suit of the petitioner-plaintiff is for the relief of specific performance on the basis of a sale agreement dated 4-11-1995 and also for the consequential relief of permanent injunction. The respondents/defendants has denied the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner herein. During the course of the trial, when the petitioner herein was examined as P.W. 1 and wanted to mark the sale agreement in the evidence, the other side objected for the marking of the said agreement on the ground that it is unregistered ...
Tag this Judgment!Cauvery Mineral Waters Private Limited Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4779; ILR2002KAR4791; 2003(1)KarLJ265
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. In all these petitions the petitioners have challenged the Notification Nos. GSR 759 and 760(E), dated 29-9-2000 issued by the Union of India introducing amendment to Rule 42 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1955').2. In one of the writ petitions the petitioner has sought for quashing of the communication in letter bearing No. MDBN/L-696380, dated 16-11-2001 issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, under which the request for retaining the brand name 'Cauvery' has been rejected on the ground that it contravenes the clauses concerning labelling conditions as per IS : 14543 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1954').3. The case of the petitioners is that whether the Union of India is competent to frame rules regulating the sale of packaged drinking water since the word 'water' is excluded from the definition of the word 'food' under the Act 1954. It is th...
Tag this Judgment!P. Varalakshmi Reddy and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC584; 2003ACJ1952
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel representing the appellants who are the wife and three children of the deceased as also technically, respondent No. 2 who is the mother of the deceased all of whom were claimants before the M.A.C.T. We have also heard the learned Counsel who represents the respondent Corporation and we have perused the record of the case as we are required to do.2. The deceased P. Balakrishna Reddy was working as a utility hand under Dredging Corporation of India at Panambur and at about 8.50 p.m. on the night of 28.1.90 he was supposed to have been proceeding towards Baikampady side from Panambur. The Corporation bus No. MEF 8488 came from Mangalore side and hit the cyclist from behind. The impact was rather serious because the deceased was thrown more than 20 ft. away or as per the eyewitness evidence he was dragged about 20 ft. away. The bus mounted the road divider and ultimately came to a halt on the opposite end of the road. The Tribunal on the ba...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dinakar Vs. M.S. Kapoor and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4576; 2002(6)KarLJ99
ORDER1. A complaint is filed before this Court by the complainant herein under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), praying this Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the accused 1 and 2, i.e., respondents herein, personally for the gross disobedience of this Court's order in W.P. No. 32248 of 1994 (GM), dated 6-3-2002, and punish them appropriately in accordance with law.2. The facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant filed W.P. No. 32248 of 1994 praying writ of mandamus against the respondents. The said writ petition was allowed with a clear-cut order of writ of mandamus with the following directions:1. Hand over the physical vacant possession of the small-scale industry of the complainant within a period of two weeks;2. To restore the goods, etc., to this complainant shifted by them and to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order;3. Granted rehabilitation ...
Tag this Judgment!Pranava P.S. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)KarLJ492
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 30577 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under Rule 14(3) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997 ('rules' for short), on the ground that he has studied 10 full academic years between 1st standard and 10th standard at Sullia and Alike Villages. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 30478 and 27308 of 2002 are claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that they have studied 10 full academic years between 1st standard and 10th standard at Mudhol. The petitioner in W.P. No. 28174 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that he had studied 1st standard at Humnabad and from 2nd standard to 10th standard at Maniknagar. The petitioner in W.P. No. 32520 of 2002 is claiming the reservation under the rules on the ground that he has studied 1st standard to 4th standard at Koppa and 5th standard to 10th standard at Sringeri. The petitioner in W.P. No. ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Arjundas Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4785
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the order passed by respondent No. 3 in No. COMPT/ LOK/ BCD-127/99-2000 dated 21st May, 2001, produced as Annexure-A.2. The petitioner is a Government Servant working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kolar District. Formerly, he was working as the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore District (Urban), Bangalore. While he was working as the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore District (Urban), Bangalore a complaint was lodged by the fourth respondent to the Inspector General of Police attached to Lokayuktha alleging that the petitioner demanded Rs. 20.000/- by way of illegal gratification for reducing the excise duty to Rs. 44.000/- from the original levy of Rs. 91,389/-. The fourth respondent taking exception to the demand approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Wing, Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station and lodg...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Krishnamurthy and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4352; 2003(3)KarLJ288
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioners are challenging Annexure-A, an order dated 25-10-1999 in this petition. They are also seeking for a writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from passing any order on the basis of the impugned order. They also want a direction to the thirdrespondent to pay the value of the timber which is realised by auction of the timber cut and deposited in Government depot by the petitioner. 2. Petitioners state in the petition that the Special Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga, in terms of the orders dated 27-3-1972 and 10-1-1973 granted 18 acres of dry land in Sy. No. 40 of Murur Village of Sagar Taluk in favour of one Ganapayya. His brother Ramappa was also granted 9 acres of dry land in the same survey number by the Special Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga for an upset price. Ganapayya died leaving behind a Will in favour of Ramappa. After the death of Ramappa, petitioners are in possession and they are cultivating the land. They were r...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrashekar (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and La ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4541; 2003(3)KarLJ23
1. We have heard the learned Advocate who appears in favour of the cross-objectors as also the learned Government Pleader who represents the respondents. The first point that has been canvassed before us is with regard to the aspect of maintainability of these cross-objections because of the peculiar facts relating to the present .appeal. Admittedly, the LAO had determined the market value of the lands in question at Rs. 19,090/- per acre. The reference was made to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation which was ultimately enhanced to Rs. 1,03,000/- per acre. The State had preferred M.F.A. No. 2107 of 1994 contending that the enhancement was excessive and an earlier Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal in question. The real question is as to whether the cross-objections would survive in these circumstances. One contention that is invariably raised on behalf of the acquiring authorities is that where the High Court has dismissed the main appeal, that cross-objections which...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »