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 Executive Engineer, Sbc Division Vs. K. Subba Reddy (Deceased) by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-2003
Reported in: 2004(2)ARBLR274(Kar); 2004(3)KarLJ143
M.F. Saldanha J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel who represents the appellants as also the learned Counsel who represents the respondents who are the L.Rs of the original contractor-claimant. The facts of this case are very similar to all other cases relating to Government contracts insofar as the contract dated 22-7-1985 for construction of Shahapur Branch Canal, Upper Krishna Project was awarded to the contractor and this was a time bound contract worth Rs. 37.27 lakhs. The duration of the contract was one year and the case of the department is that the Contractor neglected to perform his part of the contract, that he had commenced the work at a very late stage; that the amount of work undertaken was absolutely minimal and since this was a World Bank aided projected and the department would have suffered serious prejudice as the time factor was very short and the loan would have lapsed, and that the department had no option except to terminate the contract on 21-7-1986. Pursuant ...
Nagarajappa G. and ors. Vs. Centralized Admission Cell and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1912; 2003(3)KarLJ271
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. The writ petitioners are students who have been selected by the Centralised Admission Cell (hereinafter referred to as 'Admission Cell' for brevity) for admission to Bachelor of Education Course (B.Ed.) for the academic year 2002-03, The 1st respondent along with respondents 3 and 4 directed the 6th respondent-college to admit these students in its college under the Government quota. When the students approached the 6th respondent, it refused admission on the ground that the college had already filled up all the seats both under the management and Government quota. This refusal is questioned in these writ petitions and the petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus by directing 6th respondent to admit them to its college.2. By an ex parte interim order of this Court the 6th respondent was directed to admit the students.3. 6th respondent-college has filed detailed statement of objections. It has stated in the objections statement that it is a 'rel...
The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division and ors. Vs. Bhovi Samaj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1584; 2004(2)KarLJ9
Jain, C.J. 1. The State has filed this appeal against the common order dated 30.8.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 36702-36718/2000 c/w W.P. Nos. 38791-38800/2000. It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case.2. Sri M.N. Seshadri, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant State submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in treating the caste mentioned in the Certificates as BOVI, BOYI, BHOI as Scheduled Caste and belonging to 'BHOVI' community in absence of any special notification. It is submitted that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable as the Union of India which was party, has been deleted. He relied on the decisions in B. BASAVLINGAPPA v. D. MUNICHINNAPPA AND ORS., : [1965]1SCR316 and in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MILIND AND ORS., AIR 2001 SC 393 Learned Government Advocate submitted that in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Milind's case that it is not all permissible to ho...
Union Bank of India Vs. Parasuram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant333; ILR2003KAR2236
Majage, J.1. On the claim made for a sum of Rs. 30,203.65 with interest @ Rs. 21% per annum by the respondent, who was plaintiff in O.S. No. 51/1992 on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Navalgund, the Appellate Court/Ill Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) at Dharwad held in R.A. No. 19/1997 that he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,244/- with interest @ Rs. 18% per annum from the date of suit to till this realisation, though the Trial Court had dismissed his suit. Hence, aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, the appellant, who was defendant in said suit and respondent before the first Appellate Court, has approached this Court by way of second appeal.2. While admitting the appeal on 31.8.1999, this Court framed following substantial question of law for decision:-'Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in granting interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount found due when the rate of interest that was agreed to be paid on such deposit was stated to be only 6...
Abdul Rehman and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant311; 2003(4)KarLJ148
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court on 12-4-1999 referred the following question to the Full Bench:'Whether Section 35 of the Karnataka Improvement Boards Act has adopted the entire Land Acquisition Act or incorporated some of its provisions?'2. As per the order of the Division Bench, the matter was posted before the Full Bench. On 25-11-1999, a Full Bench of this Court granted two weeks' time to do the needful and in case of default, appeals/petitions stand dismissed without further orders. Thereafter needful was not done vide order dated 25-11-1999, hence writ appeals automatically stood dismissed. Thereafter, civil petitions were filed. In view of the retirement of Chief Justice, one of the Members of the Bench, the Chief Justice vide order dated 4-3-2003 constituted this Full Bench and civil petitions were posted today, they were allowed and writ appeals are restored to file. Hence, this reference has come up before us today.3. As agreed by the respective learned...
Abdul Rehman and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2282
ORDERJain, C.J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court on 12.4.1999 referred the following question to the Full Bench. 'Whether Section 35 of the Karnataka improvement Boards Act has adopted the entire Land Acquisition Act or incorporated some of its provisions'. 2. As per the Order of the Division Bench, the matter was posted before the Full Bench. On 25.11.1999 a Full Bench of this Court granted two weeks time to do the needful and in case of default, appeals/petitions stand dismissed without further orders. Thereafter needful was not done vide order dated 25.11.1999, hence W.A.s automatically stood dismissed. Thereafter C.Ps were filed. In view of the retirement of Chief Justice, one of the Member of the Bench, the Chief Justice vide order dated 4.3.2003 constituted this Full Bench and C.Ps were posted today, they were allowed and W.As are restored to file. Hence, this reference has come up before us today. 3. As agreed by the respective learned Counsel, the matter has been considered to...
Mallappa Adiveppa Hadapad Vs. Smt. Rudrawwa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1774; 2003(3)KarLJ470
Majage, J.1. This appeal is by the appellant, who was 1st defendant in O.S.No. 20/1986 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Dharwad, challenging the judgment and decree passed therein by which the sard suit brought by the 1st respondent, who was plaintiff therein, has been decreed in part holding her as owner of land in Block No. 111/1 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas of Haletegur Village and entitled to its possession, though dismissed the suit for other reliefs claimed and also for land in Block No. 111/2 covered by sale deed dated 24.4.1972, and also against the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No. 20/1990 on the file of the Court of II Addl. District Judge at Dharwad, since the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court came to be affirmed by the said 1st Appellate Court.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereafter as shown in the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court, i.e, plaintiff and defendants.3. The brief facts, which gave rise to the prese...
Basamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ129
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. These petitioners are the owners and in peaceful possession of the land bearing Sy. No. 63 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas situated at Noo-lagere Village, Hirekerur Taluk. The land in question is a service inam land. The father of the petitioners was the inamdar of the land in question. When things stood thus, one Shanthaveerappa alleged to have (claiming as a tenant) filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land in question. The said application had come up for consideration on 25-9-1975. On that day, the Tribunal passed the impugned order in No. KLR SR 95. In pursuance of that order, the 3rd respondent has issued notice to the petitioners on 20-8-1985 to give possession of land in question. These petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 25-9-1975 and the notice dated 20-8-1985 before this Court in W.P. No. 13563 of 1985. When the matter was pending for hearing, in view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the said petition filed b...
S.G. Mallikarjun and ors. Vs. Smt. Asha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC753; ILR2003KAR4076
Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings in P.C. No. 38/02 on the file of C J M Bellary. The petitioners are the accused. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr .C alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 494, 494A and 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr P.C. and after registration of the case in Crime No. 191/02 the accused were arrested . The said proceedings are challenged as illegal and seek quashing of the same. 2. The facts reveal that except the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC rest of the offences are cognizable and could be investigated by the Police for launching the prosecution. The provisions of Section 198 of Cr P.C. mandates that the Court shall not take cognizance of offences relating to Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint by the aggrieved persons or the relatives with the leave of th...
Mysore Cements Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: [2003]131STC345(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus by way of a direction in addition to various other directions in terms of the various prayers made in para 12 of the petition. The petitioner, a registered company, has a cement manufacturing plant at Ammasandra in Tumkur District. The company purchases petroleum products from respondent Nos. 1 to 3. They have collected the tax from time to time from the petitioner. The petitioner in somewhat identical circumstances had approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the matter of levy of entry tax on the petitioner-factory, Ammasandra. The Tribunal, by a detailed order allowed the petition and accepted the contention of the petitioner. According to the petition averments, the petitioner is therefore not liable to pay the entry tax for entry of goods in the petitioner-factory. In the light of the subsequent Tribunal's order, the petitioner made a refund claim on the Oil Corporation and the Oil Corporation in turn m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »