Karnataka Court March 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghataprabha Project Vs. Malali A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ347
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. Land measuring 2 acres and 4 guntas situated in Survey Nos. 95/1 and 95/2 of Kunnal Village, Ramadurga Taluk was notified for acquisition in connection with the construction of Hidkal Dam Project under a preliminary notification dated 29-1-1998. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per acre which did not satisfy the landowners resulting in a reference to the Civil Court for determination of the just and fair compensation payable to them. The Reference Court recorded evidence on behalf of the landowners and by adopting the capitalisation method came to the conclusion that the landowners were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,94,560/- per acre. The Court, however, felt that since in a similar case arising out of an earlier acquisition made in the year 1994, the Court had determined compensation at Rs. 96,000/- per acre; only the said amount would meet the ends of justice. The Special Land Acquisition Officer h...
Vimalavva Alias Vinodavva Vs. Smt. Yellavva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant313; 2003(3)KarLJ424
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. This revision petition is filed challenging the orders of the Trial Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and II Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ranebennur, dated 10-10-2002.2. The petitioner herein is the successful candidate in the Gram Panchayat election of Kamadod, which was held on 27-2-2000. There were two seats to be elected in the village of Ennihosalli, one from General and another from S.T. group reserved for woman. The contesting candidate (opposition) i.e., petitioner before the Trial Court and respondents 4 and 5 represented reserved seat for woman in S.T. group. In the election, the petitioner before this Court was declared as successful candidate. Aggrieved by the same Smt. Yellawa, the 1st respondent herein filed the election petition contending that both herself and the petitioner hereunder got 206 votes, one extra vote given to the petitioner herein was an invalid vot...
Nagappa Poojary Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ150
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner is assailing the validity and correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal, dated 28-12-2002 in LRT No. 616/81-82.2. This is third round litigation coming up before this Court assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has not conducted enquiry as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and Rules. The case of the petitioner is that he is claiming the tenancy rights which was succeeded from his mother in respect of 0.75 acres in S. No. 131/13B in Ullal Village, Mangalore. The said application was rejected by the Tribunal on 12-9-1981. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 5174 of 1995. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. After remand, the Tribunal has passed the order on 26-5-1999 granting occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner. Assailing...
Dr. Satwant Pasricha Vs. National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ379
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.The 1st respondent-National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institute') is one of the premier institutions in the country which provides for specialised treatment in areas of neurosciences and mental health. The Institute has been established as an autonomous body and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860; and it is also a deemed University. The Institute is managed by a Board of Management. The Chairman of the Board of Management is the Union Minister for Health and Family Welfare. The other members of the Board of Management are nominees of the Central and the State Governments and Faculty Members of the Institute.2. A few facts, which are not in serious dispute and are relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be stated as hereunder:The petitioner is presently working as Additional Professor in the Department of Clinical Psychology in the 1st respondent-Institute. The Institute introduced a ...
Mutteppa Nagappa Karegar Vs. G.B. Attar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ1929; ILR2003KAR2877; 2003(3)KarLJ387
This is an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 7-8-1995 passed in M.V.C. No. 554 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Belgaum.2. The claimant is the appellant who is aggrieved by the impugned order and award whereby his claim application came to be dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation and also on the ground that the claimant had failed to prove that the injuries caused to him were due to an accident that took place on 22-6-1988 at about 12.30 p.m. on the Raibag-Harugeri Road due to the rash and negligent driving of a tempo bearing Registration No. BMF 4618 owned by the first respondent; that the claimant had not proved that he had sustained injuries due to the accident involving such a vehicle and as such he was not entitled to any compensation.3. The Tribunal had framed an additional issue as to whether the delay in filing the petition can be condoned and as to whether it can be held that the...
Smt. Rukmini Bai and anr. Vs. Venkoba Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant473; ILR2003KAR2192; 2003(4)KarLJ416
Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This regular second appeal is preferred by the appellants in R.A. No. 6/96 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the court below dismissing the appeal preferred by them and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S. No. 185/91 which was partly decreed by the trial Court.2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in the course of this judgment with reference to their rank in the trial Court.3. The suit schedule properties belonged to one Sakkubayamma. She had a daughter by name Bhagyamma who pre-deceased her in the year 1967. The said Bhagyamma had four daughters and one son. Sakkubayamma died in the year 1980. During her life time Sakkubayamma sold part of the suit property measuring 105 x 48 feet to one Krishnoji Rao which was subsequently purchased by Padmavathamma, the second defendant under a registered deed of sale on 28.9.1977. Sakkubayamma has executed the document Ex.D. 10 transferring the remaining part of the sch...
G. Baramappa Vs. Kenchappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant331; 2003(4)KarLJ289
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 74 of 2002, dated 21-1-2003 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kudligi.2. The petitioner filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the defendants/respondents filed their objections regarding payment of Court fees and the relief sought for by the petitioner. The Trial Court held the said issue as a preliminary issue and passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the Court fee on the market value as claimed by him to an extent of his share of Rs. 21,000/- under Section. 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Assailing the said order on preliminary issue passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 74 of 2002, dated 21-1-2003, the petitioner presented this revision petition.3. The main grounds canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petit...
Shankar Raj Vs. Joint Commissioner for (int) South Zone and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3473; [2004]138STC690(Kar)
ORDERSreedhar Rao, J.1. Sri H.V. Ramesh, learned H.C.G.P. takes notice for the respondents.2. These two petitions are considered together for passing a common order as the facts involved are similar and parties are same.3. The second respondent inspected M/s. Anand Sweets and Savories at Commercial Street and Jayanager, Bangalore. The account books were not produced when demanded, at the time of inspection by the petitioner. Accordingly the prosecution is launched against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 29(2) (m) of the K.S.T. Act 1957. Petitioner is the complainant described as Accounts Manager of Anand Sweets.4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is only an employee of M/s. Anand Sweets and not liable for prosecution under Section 26 of the Act in any manner. The provisions of Section 26 of the Act places an obligation on the dealer or any other person who is liable to be registered as a dealer to maintain true and correct accounts of the business....
Harihar Polyfibres Vs. Karnataka Forest Development Corpn. Employees U ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR825; [2003]48SCL42(Kar)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 2nd August, 1999, in Writ Petition No. 25799 of 1991. The above Writ Petition was filed by the respondents 1 and 2, namely, Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Employees Union and Smt. N. Lalitha, General Secretary of the said Union. The first respondent is a registered Trade Union of all the employees serving in the Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Limited, the third respondent herein. The third respondent Corporation is a public limited company wholly owned by the Government of Karnataka. According to all the parties to the writ proceedings, the Karnataka Forest Development Corporation being a Statutory Authority is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Harihar Polyfibers, the appellant-company which is a unit of Grasim Industries Limited, Headquarter of which is situated in New Delhi, is engaged in the manufacturing of Rayon Grade Pulp and Pulp products at i...
Mohanlal Jindal Vs. B.P. Padmarajaiah (Deceased) by L.Rs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ522
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These petitions are filed by both the tenant and the landlords. The tenant is aggrieved by the eviction order passed against him under Section 21(1)(h) and the landlords are aggrieved by the order of rejection of the petition under Section 21(1)(a) and (f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, and sought for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, dated 14-1-1999 in H.R.C. No. 1114 of 1996.2. For the sake of convenience the rank of the parties is referred to as tenant and landlords.3. (a) The brief facts of the case are that the eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenant under Section 21(1 )(a), (f), (h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (now repealed) (in short referred to as the 'Act'), seeking eviction. The case of the landlords is that the shop premises in question was leased in favour of the tenant for the purpose of carrying on business in bangles. It is alleged that he had st...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »