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.
Smt. Girija Vs. K. Vinay
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: 2005(1)ALD(Cri)2; I(2004)BC345; ILR2003KAR3252
'The duty of the Judicature is to act upon the true intention of the legislature and the function of the Courts is only to expound and not to legislate' ORDERRajendra Prasad, J.1. Both these revision petitions involve common question of law, parties in both the cases are common, common arguments have been advanced and hence, common order is being passed. 2. Both revision petitions filed by the accused under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr. P.C., are directed against the orders dated 26-11-2001 passed in C.C. Nos. 35574/2001 and 35575/2001, respectively, on the file of the 16th Addl., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, wherein the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, against the accused - revision petitioner, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, questioning the legality and propriety of the order impugned.3. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri Sathayanarayana Chalke, for M/s Lex Nexus, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner an...
Dr. Riaz Ahmad Sheriff Vs. the University of Agricultural Sciences by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3653; 2004(3)KarLJ165
ORDERVishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the communication dated 10th April 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-N to the Writ Petition, and also for a further direction to the respondent to settle the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner along with interest at 12 percent per annum.2. Facts in brief, which may be relevant for the disposal of the petition, may be stated as hereunder:The petitioner was first appointed by the State Government in the year 1962 purely on temporary basis as a Research Assistant in the Department of Agriculture by means of Appointment order dated 25th July 1962, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. However, when he was thus serving in the Department on temporary basis, the Ragi Research Scheme where the petitioner was working, was transferred from the State Government to the University of Agricultural Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'the Un...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bharamappa Doddabirappa Pujari and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC568; 2005ACJ1509; ILR2003KAR3511
Magage, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Judgment and Award dated 30.4.2001 passed by the Court of District Judge and MACT at Gadag, by which, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- has been awarded to the claimant since, according to it, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation from it.2. Heard the Counsel for the parties. It is submitted for the appellant - Insurance Company that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding it (Insurance Company) liable to pay compensation when the rider of the motorcycle, who was arrayed as 1st respondent before the Tribunal had no valid and effective driving licence to drive motorcycle as on the date of accident, which has been established as of fact by adducing documentary evidence. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the other side supported the impugned Judgment and Award. Perused the records carefully.3. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present Appeal are : The claimant filed claim petition before the Tri...
Hotel Bangalore International Limited, by Its Managing Director and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4295
ORDERPatil, J. 1. In these Writ Petitions, wherever Rule is not issued, issue Rule nisi.2. In these petitions, the petitioners, questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned Notification dated 1st April 2003 in No. FD. 20 PES 2002, published in the Karnataka Gazettee No. 347 dated 1st April 2003 vide Annexure A, have presented these petitions. Further, they have sought for a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, prohibiting the respondents 2 to 4 from demanding minimum lifting of liquor by the petitioners.3. The petitioners herein are the holders of Clause 2 and Clause 9 licences. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by the Notification dated 1st April 2003 in respect of sale of liquor in a particular area or city or a town or location, depending upon the probable demand of the consumers. Therefore, it is their case that it is neither possible nor feasible to specify the minimum quantity of liquor to be sold by the retailers including the Bar and Rest...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Jayalakshmi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4264
ORDERSreedhar Rao, J.1. The revision rises an intricate and interesting question of law relating to the entitlement of an Advocate fee in an Execution proceedings in respect of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. A compensation of Rs. 2,90,000/- was awarded with interest at 6% and the Advocate Fee was fixed at Rs. 500/-. In the Execution proceedings, there was total claim for Rs 3,59,467/ - including the Advocate's Fee of Rs. 500/- granted by the trial Court and also includes the Advocate Fee claimed for Rs. 8,080/-payable towards the execution case. The Executing Court upheld the contention of the decree holder that the Advocate fee of Rs. 8,080/- claimed in Execution case is valid and proper and accordingly awarded the same. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the order has preferred this petition. 2. The relevant provisions of Rule 100 (a) to (f) of the Karnataka Rules of Practice are extracted hereunder for a convenient reference:- '100 (Advocate's fee) to be in...
Shiva Rama Upadyaya Vs. Raja Satyanarayana Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4815
Ajith J. Gunjal, J. 1. This revision is by the defendant in the suit. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned trial Judge on the application, I.A.2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by him seeking permission to amend the written statement to incorporate paras 7(a) and (b) as stated in the said application.2. The material facts for the disposal of the revision petition can be stated briefly as under:The plaintiff-respondent laid the present suit for ejectment on the ground that the defendant was in occupation of the suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The suit schedule property was taken on lease by the defendant for non-residential purpose of running a restaurant. The plaint averments further disclose that in the initial stage the plaintiff had filed an eviction petition against the defendant in the year 1981 seeking eviction of the ground that the suit schedule property in the occupation of the defendant is reasonably ...
Mahabala Vs. Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-2003
Reported in: 2004ACJ850; ILR2004KAR375
S.B. Majage, J.1. The appellant, who was claimant before the Additional M.A.C.T. at Sagar in M.V. C.No. 76/1995, has approached this Court since his claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- from the respondents came to be dismissed on 27.4.2001.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is submitted for the claimant that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the claimant failed to prove that there was an accident to him by motor cycle and also in not awarding compensation to him besides in holding that the Insurance Company has proved that it is not liable to pay compensation after holding that the rider had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident. On the other hand, it is submitted for the Insurance Company that the finding on negligence is proper and correct and that the policy of insurance ceased to be effective as the transfer of the vehicle by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 was not informed and, at any rate, as respondent No. 1 ha...
K. Sham Bhat and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Secretary, to Governm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant403; ILR2003KAR3026; 2004(1)KarLJ490
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 12.7.2000 has referred these Writ Appeals and Writ Petition to a Full Bench as there appears to be conflicting view between DEVAKUMARASHETTY AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, 1998(4)Kar LJ 459 and STATE OF MYSORE vs K. CHANDRASEKHARA ADIGA AND ANOTHER, , : AIR1976SC853 . As per the order of the Chief Justice dated 4.3.2003, the matter has been placed before Full Bench and has come before us on 8.7.2003. 2. The point involved in these Writ Appeals, Writ Petition and connected matters is:'Whether the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his delegated power under Section 79(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the `Act') could withdraw the privileges in respect of `KUMKI' rights exercised by any person?' 3. As the point in issue is identical and common in Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions as agreed, it is decided by this common Order. 4. In order to appreciate the question referred fo...
Smt. Shivleela and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: I(2004)ACC289; 2004ACJ759; 2003(5)KarLJ323
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bidar has by the order impugned in this appeal dismissed M.V.C. No. 114 of 1995 filed by the appellant for payment of compensation for the death of Sri Shivaraj Matapathy in a motor accident. The present appeal filed by the claimants assails the correctness of the said judgment and order.2. The appellants happen to be the widow, mother and minor children of late Shivaraj Matapathy who filed M.V.C. No. 114 of 1995 before the Tribunal for payment of compensation for the death of Sri Shivaraj Matapathy. The case of the claimants as set out in the claim petition was that Sri Shivaraj Matapathy was travelling to village Khashampur, Aurad Taluk from Bidar in connection with a certain cultural program to be conducted by him. He boarded a KSRTC bus at Bidar bus stand at about 6-30 p.m. on the 17th January, 1992. Since the bus was full of passengers, the deceased was asked to travel on the roof of the bus. The deceased accordingly climbed t...
Smt. Shivleela and ors. Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3602
Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bidar has by the order impugned in this appeal dismissed M.V.C. No. 114 of 1995 filed by the appellant for payment of compensation for the death of Sri Shivaraj Matapathy in a motor accident. The present appeal filed by the claimants assails the correctness of the said judgment and order.2. The appellant happen to be the widow, mother and minor children of late Shivaraj Matapathy who filed M.V.C. 114/1995 before the Tribunal for payment of compensation for the death of Sri Shivaraj Matapathy. The case of the claimants as set out in the claim petition was that Sri Shivaraj Matapathy was travelling to village Khashampur, Aurad Taluk from Bidar in connection with a certain cultural program to be conducted by him. He boarded a KSRTC bus at Bidar bus stand at about 6.30 p.m. on the 17th January 1992. Since the bus was full of passengers, the deceased was asked to travel on the roof of the bus. The deceased accordingly climbed to the roo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »