Karnataka Court August 2002 Judgments
K.N. Somasundara Vs. B. Lingaraju and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ963; ILR2002KAR3783; 2002(5)KarLJ459
M.S. Rajendra Prasad, J. 1. This, Memorandum of First Appeal by the appellant is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), challenging the validity and legality of the judgment dated 25-11-1996', passed in M.V.C. No. 631 of 1992 and other cases, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandya, wherein the learned Member had awarded a compensation of Rs. 53,000/- to the appellant on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehicle accident which had taken place on 3-5-1992 involving a KS.R.T.C. bus bearing Regn. No. KA 09.F.1179 on Mysore-Bangalore Road near gate of Siddaiahna Koppal-Indavalu, so far quantum of compensation awarded. 2. The Court has head the arguments on both sides. 3. In view of the grounds in the memorandum of appeal and at the time of hearing arguments, the following points would arise for consideration.-1. Whether the judgment of the Trial Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Parappa Vs. the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ313
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsels for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No. 224 of 2000, dated 22-5-2001 (Annexure-H) confirming the order passed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, dated 14-3-2000 and 28-12-1999 respectively.3. The petitioner has purchased one acre five guntas of land in Sy. No. 633/1E of Jamkhandi town under registered sale deed dated 25-3-1991 from 4th respondent for valuable consideration. After the purchase, the petitioner filed application for grant of conversion of the land in question into non-agricultural purpose before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner solely on the ground that there was a suit pending for consideration before the competent Civil Court. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharanappa Vs. Sharanamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4211; 2004(1)KarLJ393
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. This writ petition is against the order passed under Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Caveator submits that as against the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, there is an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 118 of the Act, to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as against the order passed under Section 77-A, no appeal is provided under Section 118 of the Act, and therefore, this writ petition is maintainable.3. In order to consider the rival contentions, it is just and necessary to extract Section 118 of the Act. Section 118(2) of the Act, reads as follows.--'118(2) From every order passed by the Deputy Commissioner or an officer authorised under Sub-section (1) of Section 77, the Assistant Commissioner or the prescribed authority under Section 83, an appeal shall lie to the Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish Suman and ors. Vs. National Law School of India University and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant136; ILR2002KAR3997; 2002(5)KarLJ518
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. Petitioners are the final year students of B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Degree Course in the National Law School of India University. They have completed all the previous trimesters of their course successfully. Their case is that on 31-12-2001, a get together was organised by the final year students of the respondent-University for celebrating the New Year's Eve. One Mr. Siddarth Rao, a student of third year in the respondent-University had invited one Mr. Praneet Reddy who is not a student of the respondent-University but is a roommate and friend. The said Praneet Reddy and Mr. Siddarth Rao have rented a house in Nagarbhavi, Bangalore and are living together, outside the respondent-University campus. Their further case is that Mr. Praneet Reddy had consumed alcohol when he came to the said get together and harassed some of the girl students of the respondent-University. He behaved indecently with some of the female students at get together. It is alleged that at one point o...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nagappaiya Maiya Vs. President, Institute of Chartered Accountants ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant20; ILR2002KAR5367; 2002(6)KarLJ120
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J. 1. The writ petitioner is a Chartered Accountant. He has filed this petition seeking for a writ of mandamus against the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India and the Chairman, Bangalore Branch of SIRC, for a direction to them to pay all sums of money which he is legally entitled to receive as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. 2. It is stated in the petition that he was a Member of the faculty in the Institute of Chartered Accountants' and at the direction of the respondents, he was taking various coaching classes and sessions under the banner of 'Management Development Programme' from the year 1991 to December 2001. The institute paid him the remuneration till about the year 1995. Later, it has refused to pay for the period 1995 to 2001. Hence, this writ petition. 3. It is contended in the objections of the 1st respondent that the petitioner was one of the members of the Managing Committee of the Bangalore Branch of the South India...
Tag this Judgment!Hanamant Basappa Choudhari Alias Bennur Vs. Smt. Laxmawwa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4397; ILR2002KAR4224; 2002(5)KarLJ405
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 29-4-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basavana-Bagewadi, in Cr. Misc. No. 88 of 1997 awarding monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- to the 1st respondent-wife and Rs. 150/- to the 2nd respondent-minor daughter as well as the order dated 6-10-2001 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Cr. R.P. No. 131 of 2000 affirming the same.2. The main grievance of the petitioner-husband is that, though there is no dispute regarding his relationship with the respondents as well as his liability to pay maintenance, in an earlier petition, viz., Cr. Misc. No. 40 of 1987, both the parties had entered into a compromise on 30-9-1988 in which the respondents had agreed to give up their entire claim of maintenance on receipt of a lump sum amount of Rs. 9,000/- as full and final settlement of the maintenance claim and as such the present petition once again claiming maintenance is illegal. I...
Tag this Judgment!B.G. Dayananda Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3892; 2002(5)KarLJ378
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition is presently working as Superintending Engineer on independent charge. In this petition he has called in question the correctness of the Official Memorandum dated 7th June, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E to this petition, wherein the 2nd respondent-Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') resolved to spare the services of the petitioner on deputation basis at the disposal of the Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner being a permanent employee of the 2nd respondent-Board, his services could not have been lent on deputation basis to the Corporation without his consent and the impugned order is vitiated on account of mala fides on the part of the Managing Director of the Board. It is his case that the Managing Director of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. I.T. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR465]; ILR2002KAR4019; 2002(5)KarLJ411; (2002)IIILLJ757Kant
K. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 directed against order dated 21-12-2000 passed in ESI Application No. 69 of 1999 on the file of the ESI Court (Additional Industrial Tribunal) at Bangalore.2. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellant and the respondent are hereinafter referred to as the applicant and respondent-ESI Corporation as arrayed in the Court below.3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under:That the applicant filed an application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Act, 1948 against the respondent-ESI Corporation before the ESI Court at Bangalore praying for the following reliefs.-- (a) to set aside the claim in C-18, dated nil at Document No. 7 to the application;(b) to order that the amount paid towards books and periodicals under the broad head of Modular Expenses wage as defined unde...
Tag this Judgment!H. Puttaiah and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3810; 2002(6)KarLJ1
ORDER1. One H. Puttaiah and another claiming to be the residents of Channanayakanapalya Village, Doddabidarakallu Dakhale, Yeshwanthapura Hobli and Thippenahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli respectively have filed this petition as public interest litigation. It is stated that the land bearing Sy. No. 64 measuring 40 acres 12 guntas is a Government gomal land reserved for grazing purpose of the live stocks of all the villages of Doddabidarakallu, Thippenahalli and Channanayakanapalya and also the neighbouring villages like Nallakadaranahalli, Kariobana-halli, Thirumalapura and Chikkabidarakallu. R.T.C. extracts for the years 1997-98 and 2000-01 have been produced at Annexure-A and B respectively at their translated copies at Annexure-A1 and B1. It is stated that there is no other gomal land except the land in Sy. No. 64 in the village is available for grazing. It is stated that the population of the aforesaid three villages is 10,000 and the villagers are agriculturists and that all t...
Tag this Judgment!Nana Rao Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3818; 2002(6)KarLJ7
ORDER1. This petition is filed by Sri Nana Rao who is a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, having served both in the State Government and in the Central Bureau of Investigation. It is averred that this is a public interest litigation and on the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 17433 of 1997 directions to investigate offence of disproportionate assets punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was initiated against Sri S. Bangarappa which ended in the Central Bureau of Investigation placing a charge-sheet against him in C.C. No. 47 of 1999. It is further averred that since the accused in the said case is trying to alienate properties and if it is not stopped, even if the case ends in conviction and there is an order of forfeiture of his illegally obtained assets, the property cannot be forfeited and wherefore, the petitioner got issued notice dated 5-3-2002 as per Annexure-A to the first respondent-Union of India requesting it to make an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »