Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4350
ORDER OF THE REFERENCE COURT - ON FACTS, HELD - (a) The Lands even according to the Special Land Acquisition Officer have a potential value for (b) Non-agricultural purposes -- The appellants have not placed any material to prove any minus factors or dissimilarities with the comparable lands, disentitling the respondent for enhancement of compensation -- The State (c) Has not preferred any appeal against the Judgment and , award passed by the Reference Court in respect of comparable lands and the reference Court taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, enhanced the market value of the land - order of the Reference Court is justified.Dismissing the Appeal filed by the LAO, and the Divisional Controller, the Court,Held: It is not in dispute that the lands were Agricultural lands as on the date of the notification. The lands are situated abutting the national highway i.e, by the side9 of Sedam - Chincholi main road and within the municipal limits of Sedam town Municipality. These la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(6)KarLJ255
Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Gulbarga under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), questioning the judgment and award dated 21-2-2002 in L.A.C. No. 1504 of 1996 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gulbarga.2. The facts of the case are that:By notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894, which was published in the State Gazette on 4-9-1993 the land of claimant measuring 8 acres in Sy. No. 206/3/3B situated within the Sedam Town has been acquired by the Government for the construction of KSRTC Depot and Staff Quarters. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 10-12-1993 has fixed the market value of the land of claimant at Rs. 28,000/- per acre on the basis of sales statistics.3. On a reference made under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act by the claimants, the Additional Civil Judge (for short 'Reference Court') by his judgment dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)8; I(2004)BC609; 2004CriLJ672
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners, who are accused in C.C. No. 34601 of 2000 on the file of the Court of XVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, have challenged initiation of said proceedings against them.2. According to the respondent-complainant, he had agreed to purchase an apartment bearing No. 1001 in 'Prudential Pavan', a property to be developed in 16th 'B' Main, HAL II Stage, Kodihalli, Bangalore City, from the accused (which is a partnership firm with 4 partners) and paid a sum of Rs. 7,10,000/- in that regard on 31.1.1998, but, as the work undertaken by the petitioner-accused was found tardy and substandard and delivery of the possession of the flat was postponed from time-to-time on untenable grounds, he had no alternative except to terminate the agreement to purchase that flat and accordingly terminating the agreement, demanded back Rs. 7,10,000/- paid to the accused and in that connection, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(6)KarLJ186; (2004)ILLJ546Kant
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'ESI Act'), questioning the order dated 15-3-2001 of the 'Employees' State Insurance Court, Hubli, allowing the ESI Application No. 10 of 2001 filed by the employer under Section 75 of the ESI Act. Section 82 enjoins upon the appellant to make out a question of law in order to maintain the appeal. Sub-section (2) of Section 82 reads as under:'(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves substantial question of law'.2. The question of law that arises for consideration is:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the payment of the contribution towards overtime wages by the respondent-Company for the period from 16-1-1991 to 31-8-1992 made pursuant to the demand made on 8-12-2000 in view of the judgment dated 6-11-1996 of the Apex. Court in the case of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(6)KarLJ198
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. These two revisions are arising out of the common order passed by the Sessions and Special Judge at Bangalore, by order dated 8-2-2000 in Special Case Nos. 47 and 48 of 1997. The order assailed in Crl. R. P. No. 467 of 2000 is in respect of Special Case No. 48 of 1997 and the order assailed in Crl. R.P. No. 468 of 1997 is in respect of Special Case No. 47 of 1997.2. Both these petitions are taken up together for disposal as they arise out of a common order.3. The brief facts leading to these revisions are that the Bureau of Indian Standards was established under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 (Act 63 of 1986) for harmonious development of the activities of Standardization, Marketing and Quality Certification of Goods and for matters connected therewith, the said Bureau received several complaints regarding the respondents in both the petitions that they were dealing in mild steel tubes, particularly the galvanised steel tubes as covered under IS ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(27)PTC516(Karn)
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The defendant in O.S. 6/2001 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Belgaum, has filed this appeal challenging the Order on I.A. No. 1 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their respective ranks before the Trial Court.3. The plaintiff has filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their servants or agents any one of them claiming through them in any manner infringing the plaintiffs well established trade mark 'Sukhsagar' or any other trade mark which are in any way deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark and trading style in respect of preparation of food items by using offending trade mark and for certain other reliefs. The plaintiff has averred that it has been using the trade mark 'Sukhsagar' since 1976. The artistic work, design and get up in respect of the said trademark exclusively belong to it. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2004CriLJ1025; ILR2003KAR4366
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. These two revisions are arising out of the common order passed by the Sessions and Spl. Judge at Bangalore, by order dated 8.2.2000 in Spl. Case No. 47/97 and 48/97. The order assailed in Crl.R.R 467/00 is in respect of Spl. Case No. 48/97 and the order assailed in Crl.R.P. 468/97 is in respect of SPl. case No. 47/97.2. Both these petitions are taken up together for disposal as they arise out of a common order.3. The brief facts leading to these revisions are that the Bureau of Indian Standards was established under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 (Act 63 of 1986) for harmonious development of the activities of Standardization, Marketing and Quality Certification of Goods and for matters connected therewith, the said Bureau received several complaints regarding the respondents in both the petitions that they were dealing in M.S. tubes, particularly the galvanised steel tubes as covered under IS 1239-Part -I used for water supply application and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4628
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ESI Act) questioning the order dated 15.3,2001 of the Employees State Insurance Court, Hubli, allowing the ESI application No. 10/2001 filed by the employer under Section 75 of the ESI Act. Section 82 enjoins upon the appellant to make out a question of law in order to maintain the appeal. Sub-section (2) of Section 82 reads as under:'(2) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of an Employees' Insurance Court if it involves substantial question of law.'2. The question of law that arises for consideration is:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the payment of the contribution towards overtime wages by the respondent-Company for the period from 16.1.1991 to 31.8.1992 made pursuant to the demand made on 8.12.2000 in view of the judgment dated 6.11.1996 of the Apex Court in the case of Indian DRUG PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., v. E.S.I., COR...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2105
Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant case papers including the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent being absent and there being no representation on his behalf, he could not be heard in the matter. Even in the absence of the learned Counsel for the respondent, the learned Counsel for the appellant took me in detail through the pleadings, the evidence and the impugned judgment of the Trial Court.2. This appeal by the defendant Smt. Sheetawwa is directed against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 24.1.2000 whereby and where under the Trial Court has decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff with costs directing the appellant-defendant to execute the registered sale deed after receiving the remaining sale consideration amount and that if, the defendant fails to execute the registered sale deed, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the sale deed executed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4225
Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Since these Writ Appeals are filed against the common order dated 27th/ 28th January 1997 made by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants, all these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this order.2.The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 4890 of 1999 is the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Market Committee'), Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore. The said appellant has been established under the provisions of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966; (hereinafter referred to as 'the APMC Act'). The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 4569 of 1999 is the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bangarpet, Kolar District, and the Appellants in Writ Appeal Nos. 2981-82 of 1997 are the Mandi Merchants and Commission Agents registered under the provisions of APMC Act and they are carrying on their trading activities in the respective premises situated at APMC Yard, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore. In...
Tag this Judgment!