Karnataka Court September 2002 Judgments
Smt. Kasturibai Vs. Corporation of City of Hubli and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant170; ILR2002KAR5351; 2003(4)KarLJ55
ORDERB. Padmaraj, J.1. None appears for the petitioner. When the matter has reached for admission, there is absolutely no representation on the side of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, therefore, left with no other alternative, instead of dismissing the Revision Petition for default, 1 myself carefully perused the case records including the impugned order made by the Court below in order to find out whether the impugned order or an order under Revision warrants any interference by this Court?2. This Revision Petition is by the petitioner who is an appellant before the Lower Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by the order made by the Lower Appellate Court dated 2-11-2001 on LA. No. 1, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition. By the impugned order, the Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the LA. No. I of the petitioner herein whereunder he has sought for an ad interim order of injunction during the pendency of the appeal against the respondent.3. In the grounds of Revis...
Tag this Judgment!Anjinamma and anr. Vs. Puttahariyappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KarLJ441
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Though the matter is listed in the preliminary hearing, having regard to the nature of relief prayed for in this petition, by the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, petitioner is heard on merits and the petition is being disposed of by this order.2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned endorsement at Annexure-C, dated 18-3-2002 issued by the 7th respondent in refusing to register the document presented by them after obtaining the decree from the competent Civil Court in the Original Suit No. 246 of 1993 as the Registering Authority has refused to register the document presented by them as the cause of action arose for them under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short 'the Act').3. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, the Trial Court has determined the rights of the parties and answered the contentious issues in favour of the petitioner and passed judgment and decree dated 7-3-2002 permitting the petitioner to pres...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shivaraj Vs. Principal, Karnataka Regional Engineering College and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant92; ILR2002KAR5012; 2003(1)KarLJ455
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 41213 of 2001 is admitted to I year B.E. Course in K.R.E. College, Suratkal, in the branch of mining engineering. The first petitioner in W.P. Nos. 46867 and 46868 of 2001 is admitted to the very same college in the branch of Metallurgy and the second petitioner in the said writ petitions is admitted to the branch of civil engineering. All the three petitioners have completed their first year course. All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, has formulated guidelines for effecting change of course to students in an engineering college in the beginning of third semester (second year) course. Accordingly, all these three petitioners have applied for change of course. All the three of them want the branch of mechanical engineering. The college refused to consider their request on the ground that there is no vacancy available in the mechanical engineering course. Challenging the aforesaid decision of the college, the petitioners ha...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Prabhu and ors. Vs. Smt. Bhavani Poojary and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC87; 2003ACJ698; [2003(96)FLR307]; ILR2002KAR5382; 2003(1)KarLJ469
R. Gururajan, J.1. The appellants are challenging the judgment and order dated 31-5-2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Man-galore.2. The facts in brief are as under:Parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant is the alleged employer. The respondent is the claimant.3. The claimant filed an application seeking for a compensation of Rs. 99,370/-. Her case was that her husband was working with the respondent (appellants). He was regularly doing firewood cutting work. He had gone for work to the depot on 31-5-1999 at about 7.30 or 8.00 a.m. He started cutting of firewood. During the course of employment, the axe hit his right leg and due to excess bleeding of blood, he was laid down on the floor. He was taken to Government Wenlock Hospital, Mangalore and he died thereafter.4. This application was opposed by the appellant-respondents. They deny their relationship in para 9. They say that Sri T.S. Prabhu is the owner of the firewood...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hidkal Dam Vs. Gurlingappa Malla ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)KarLJ524
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Government Advocate for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and carefully perused the entire case records with his assistance.2. Though the appellant has not taken steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent 1(c), if any, on record the appeal tiled by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer does not abate in view of the fact that the other legal representatives of the deceased respondent 1 are already on record and the estate of the deceased respondent 1 is effectively represented by the other legal representatives of the deceased claimant-Gurlingappa.3. Learned Counsel for the respondents 1(a), (b) and (g) being absent, they could not be heard in the matter. Even in the absence of the learned Counsel for the respondents 1(a), (b) and (g), the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officertook me through the case papers in detail. Insofar as the respondents He) and Of), thou...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Maruti Fakirappa Magadum and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ143
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer both on I.A. No. 1 as well as on the question of admission of this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer.2. Accepting the explanation offered on behalf of the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the delay in refiling the appeal, the same is condoned as in my view, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay in refiling the appeal has been reasonably and satisfactorily explained by the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, I.A. No. 1 is allowed.3. Now with regard to the merits of the case, the learned Government Advocate for the appellant/Land Acquisition Officer has contended that the assessment of compensation by the first Appellate Court at Rs. 30,000/- per acre for the acquired land is highly excessive and exorbitant. He therefore contended that the compensation amount awarded by the first Appellate Court warrant...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnoji Gundu Kulkarni Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)KarLJ280
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned Advocates for both contesting parties and the learned Government Advocate on merits. 2. Though the cause list shows that the learned Government Advocate is not on record, because of some confusion, a copy of the proceedings were handed over to the learned Government Advocate and he has been heard on merits. 3. The appellant claims to be an ex-serviceman and he had filed an application for resumption of the lands on this ground. That application was rejected on 8-12-1976 for certain reasons against which an appeal was filed to the Assistant Commissioner, who strangely enough returned the papers on the ground that he has no jurisdiction. This was on 15-1-1977. On 17-1-1977 itself the appellant filed an application to the Tribunal pointing out that he desires to file an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner and that the Tribunal should wait until the resumption issue is decided. It appears that even though the appeal was filed to the Special A...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataraman Dev (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Gajanam Lakshmi Bangeri and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR5309; 2003(1)KarLJ358
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned Advocates representing the contesting parties and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 on merits. The short controversy that has arisen in this case centres around the question as to whether the Land Reforms Tribunal was justified in accepting the written statement filed by the power of attorney holder of the applicants, treating the same as examination-in-chief and thereafter offering the GPA holder for cross-examination. The reason why this issue has come into sharp focus is because when the GPA holder was cross-examined by the Chairman he has unequivocally admitted that the landlord was in possession since about the year 1970-71 and this admission has been farther compounded when the witness was cross-examined by one of the members and the witness has again confirmed this position. This evidence enabled the Tribunal to take the view that even assuming some tenancy rights subsisted that these came to an end by the year...
Tag this Judgment!Ajay Mehta and ors. Vs. State by Cbi/Cb
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ350; 2003(2)KarLJ131
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Revision filed against the order of the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge in Special Case No. 131 of 1997. On 20-9-2002 the accused 1 was present before the Court. Accused 2 to 4 were absent. An application was filed for exemption by Smt. Vanitha, a junior colleague of Sri Dhanraj. It is unfortunate, on the previous day, Sri Dhanraj had expired. The Trial Court took exception that the Junior Counsel has no authority to represent the accused to file an exemption application, thus rejected the application and issued non-bailable warrant Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed.2. The impugned order of the Trial Court appears to be palpably erroneous. May be some technical lapse might have occurred on the part of the Junior Counsel in not filing a memo of appearance along with the exemption application. The Court should have considered the matter liberally in the facts and circumstances of the case. Unlike in civil cases, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Mary Lazar (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Krishna Gopal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4786; 2002(6)KarLJ320
ORDERA.M. Farooq, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the legal representatives of the decree-holder in H.R.C. No. 2022 of 1994 on the file of the learned Small Causes Judge, Bangalore. This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC assailing the order dated 18-3-2002 in Execution Case No. 273 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioners. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. When this revision petition had come up for admission on 1-7-2002, on finding prima facie, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, I directed issue of emergent notice to the respondent so as to give an opportunity to the respondent and to dispose off the matter. Thereafter, the respondent has been served and the respondent is represented by Sri Sangvi, the learned Counsel who fully supported the impugnedorder and conte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »