Karnataka Court July 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.
Robert D' Mello Vs. Henry D'Mello and Anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant78; ILR2003KAR3153; 2003(5)KarLJ232
Manjula Chellur, J.1. This appeal is filed by the 1st defendant before the Trial Court against whom the first respondent herein had filed original suit for grant of probate or in the alternative letters of administration in respect of a Will dated 16.3.1994. In brief the facts of the present case are as under:2. One Lawrence D' Mello had four sons and four daughters. He was permanent resident of Haneesh Villa, Ambedkal, Nitte Village of Karkala Taluk. He died on 27.9.1994 leaving behind the suit schedule property and also other properties. Prior to his death when he was in sound disposing state of mind executed a Will on 16.3.1994 in respect of 24 cents of land consisting of a house in Sy. No. 6219/1B, and 38 cents in Sy. No. 721/7B situate at Nitte Village. Under the Will, the said properties were bequeathed to the plaintiff- Henry D'Mello. The said document was also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Karkala, and the same was executed in the presence of witnesses. No executor was a...
The Commissioner Vs. Shrishail and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant75; ILR2003KAR3329; 2003(6)KarLJ279
Jain, CJ 1. A learned Single Judge of this Court while considering this Appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 11.9.1998, passed in R.A.No. 13/1998, has opined that the decision of this Court in KANJI MOORARJI v. S.V. HEGDE, 1979(1) Kar.L.J. 249 is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in RANI CHOUDHURY v. SURAJJIT CHOUDHURY,referred the matter to the Division Bench, and in turn a Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 7.4.2003 has referred the matter to the larger Bench and ordered to place the matter before the Chief Justice for constituting the larger Bench. As per direction of the Chief Justice issued on 7.7.2003, this reference has come up before us. 2. The question for consideration is whether an order dismissing the Appeal following the rejection of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, is a decree passed in appeal within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The necessa...
Venkatachalaiah and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Kadugodi Police an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3985; 2003(6)KarLJ261
ORDERBannurmath, J. 1. These criminal petitions have been referred to this Bench to decide -'whether filing of the charge sheet or insurance of warrant by a Magistrate would put an end to the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail?' 2. In the case of Dr. A. EBENEZER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR 2002 KAR 5003. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sreedhar Rao held that after filing of a charge sheet, the right of accused to seek anticipatory bail gets extinguished. 3. In the said case of Dr. Ebenezer, the petitioner had approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and issuing NBW against him. In this regard, the learned Judge after interpreting the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA ETC vs STATE OF PUNJAB, : 1980CriLJ1125 .disagreed with the view expressed by Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of SHEIKH...
The Divisional Controller, B.T.S. Division, Karnataka State Road Trans ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC132; 2005ACJ69; 2003(6)KarLJ359
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. In this appeal, an interesting question has arisen for consideration of the Court. On 27-11-1998 at about 12-30 noon respondent-claimant Vidya Shindhe was proceeding with her father Vykuntharao as a pillion rider of scooter bearing No. KA-05-Y-3552 on Jayamahal Road. A bus bearing No. CAF-107 which was proceeding in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter due to which Vidya Shindhe who was pregnant sustained grievous injuries. Her father Vykuntharao died on the spot. Claimant Vidya Shindhe was shifted to St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. On 1-12-1998 doctors conducted a surgery known as 'Foetal distress' and that the claimant-respondent gave birth to a male child. The child was kept in ICU and died two days after the delivery. Therefore, the claimant presented claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of her child. Appellant-Corporation contended that the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation as...
The Divisional Controller, B.T.S. Division, Ksrtc Vs. Smt. Vidya Shind ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4269
Manjunath, J. 1. In this appeal, an interesting question has arisen for consideration of the Court. On 27.11.1998 at about 12-30 noon respondent - claimant Vidya Shindhe was proceeding with her father Vykuntharao as a pillion rider of scooter bearing No. KA-05-Y-3552 on Jayamahal road. A bus bearing No. CAF - 107 which was proceeding in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter due to which Vidya Shindhe who was pregnant sustained grievous injuries. Her father Vykuntharao died on the spot. Claimant Vidya Shindhe was shifted to St. Johns Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. On 1.12/1998 doctors conducted a surgery known as 'fetal distress' and that the claimant - respondent gave birth to a male child. The child was kept in ICU and died two days after the delivery. Therefore, the claimant presented claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of her child. Appellant - Corporation contended that the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation ...
Vijayendra Shenoy Vs. South Canara District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant484; I(2005)BC74
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioner has sought for a declaration, declaring that the seizure of vehicles bearing No. KA-20/9036 and KA-20/C/9036, is illegal and also further sought for a direction, directing the respondents to deliver the vehicle bearing No. KA-20/9036 and KA-20/C/ 9036 to the petitioner forthwith. He has further sought for a direction, directing the respondents to re-schedule the loan by receiving Rs. Two lakhs and to waive the interest for the period during which the vehicles were in illegal custody of the respondent-Bank.2. It is hot in dispute that the petitioner has obtained loan from the first respondent -- The South Canara District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Mangalbre (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'), for purchasing the two vehicles bearing No. KA-20/9036 and KA-20/C/9036 and hypothecated both the vehicles in favour of the Bank authorities and executed an agreement to that effect. But due to financial constrains, he could not maint...
North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, by Managing Director ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC542; 2005ACJ1372; ILR2003KAR3476
Sabhahit, J.1. This appeal and the Cross Objections arise out of the judgment and award passed by the Addl. MACT., Belgaum, in MVC No. 1874/1997 dated 31.5.1999.2. The essential facts of the case with reference to the rank of parties before the Tribunal are as follows:-The petitioner filed a claim petition on 28.11.1997 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards injuries and consequent disability suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on 1.11.1997. It was averred that the petitioner with the knowledge of the Conductor of the Bus, was travelling on the top of the KSRTC., Bus bearing No. KA.22.F. 592 and the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver.3. The petition was resisted by the respondent. It was averred that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. Petitioner had boarded the Bus without the knowledge of the driver and conductor and the petit...
Rajashekar Banavase Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant506; 2004(1)KarLJ590
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner claims that he was the successful bidder in an auction that was conducted by the office of the Senior Geologist at Hassan, the second respondent for excavating sand in S. Nos. 118 and 119 measuring an extent of 1-20 acres of Doddanaagur village, Saklespur Taluk. It is the case of the petitioner that his highest bid of Rs. 11,000/- in the auction held on 29-11-2002 had been accepted and that the petitioner paid the amount on the same day and got the right to excavate or remove sand from this extent of land. The petitioner, by making payment, has got such right for a period of one year, is the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner.2. However, petitioner has approached this Court complaining that even before the expiry of the period of one year the second respondent, at the instance of some third persons, has cancelled the auction in favour of the petitioner, on the ground that he has not complied with some procedural requirement for the e...
K. Ravindra Mallya Vs. the State of Karnataka, by State Public Prosecu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3128; 2004(1)KarLJ561
ORDERVeerabhadraiah, J.1. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order passed in CRL APPEAL NO. 34/03 by the Prl Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore dt 18.6.2003 dismissing the appeal by confirming the order, has come up with this revision petition.2. The brief facts are as follows:The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing Regn No KA-14/m-1706 and the said vehicle was seized by the Police Sub-Inspector, Vittal Police Station, Vittal, on 3.5.2002 while illegally transporting non-duty paid liquor from the State of Karnataka to Kerala, and a case was registered in Crime No 39/02 for the offence punishable u/s 32, 34, 43(3) of the Karnataka Excise Act against the accused and reported the same to the Superintendent of Excise (an Authorised Officer), DK, Mangalore who in-turn registered a case on his file in SDK/457/DTCR/2001-02. The petitioner filed an application before the authorised officer for release of the vehicle Tata-sumo in question. The authorised officer...
Mehboob Sab and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3120; 2003(6)KarLJ41
ORDERRangavittalachar, J.1. Though the matters are listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matters are finally disposed of.2. Sri Shashidhar S. Karmadi, learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent.3. The question that falls for consideration is,whether an applicant seeking for re-determination of an award under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act' for brevity) is entitled to the statutory interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of making an application or from the day he is dispossessed.4. The Land Acquisition Officer in all these cases following the decision in SMT. IRAVVA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ILR 1996 KARNATAKA 3492 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that ' the applicant is entitled for interest only from the date of making his application.'5. Before referring to the decision relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »