Karnataka Court January 2004 Judgments
D.H. Venkata Ramaiah (Deceased) by L.Rs and ors. Vs. State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ312
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. The petitioner-Sri D.H. Venkata Ramaiah since deceased by his legal representatives and several others had filed applications for grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 in respect of 3.25 acres in Sy. No. 51 situate in Odigehalli Village which formed part of 'Fakir inam'. The Land Tribunal, Doddaballapur allowed their applications and granted occupancy rights which order came to be challenged by the Wakf Board before this Court and this Court after quashing the order of the Tribunal remanded the case to the file of Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District for a fresh enquiry. After remand, Deputy Commissioner took on his file the petitioner's application along with several similar applications filed by others and by a common order dated 6-10-2000 - Annexure-M ordered for transferring all the cases including that of the petitioner in No. LRF INM 40/98-99 before the jurisdictional Wakf Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. M. Haneef and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1147; 2004(3)KarLJ432
ORDERM.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.1. Both cases involve common questions of law and common arguments have been advanced by both sides. Hence, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. These revision petitions filed by the State under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P.C. are directed against the judgments dated 27-3-2001 and 7-4-2001 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Marigalore, in Cri. A. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1998, respectively, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had set aside the orders of confiscation dated 14-12-1997 and 24-12-1997 passed by the Authorised Officer in Nos. SDK/DTCR/135/91-92 and SDK/DTCK/271/92-93, respectively, challenging the legality and propriety of the judgments impugned.2-A. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri C. Ramakrishna, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State of Karnataka and Sri K.M. Nataraj, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents.3. In both these cases, the short question that arises for consideration is whether...
Tag this Judgment!B.U. Ugrappa Vs. the Executive Secretary, Karnataka State Council for ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ474
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is before me challenging Annexures-A to C passed by the first respondent and Annexures-L and N passed by the third respondent.2. Petitioner was appointed to the post of a Helper in 1979. Thereafter he was appointed as a Peon (designation subsequently changed as Junior Attender), He was promoted as Attender during 1986 and as Junior Assistant in September 1993. While he was working as Junior Assistant in Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology, a charge-sheet was served in terms of Annexure-A on him, attributing certain misconduct and misbehaviour on his part. He was asked to submit his reply. Thereafter one Sri Kulkarni was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, on his resignation one Sri Gopinath was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The presiding officer was also appointed by the respondent. The charge-sheet was issued by Sri A.N.N. Murthy, the first respondent-Executive Secretary and Appointing Authority. According to the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Siddegowda Vs. Smt. Mallamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1648; 2004(7)KarLJ14
Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 18/85 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mysore, arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 41/82 on the file of Civil Judge (JR.Dn). Nanjangud. The appellant is the third defendant in the suit. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit properties and for permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and for permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff in alternative seek relief of possession. The plaintiff claims to be the foster daughter of one Siddegowda (Senior) the propositus from whom she has purchased the suit properties under registered sale deed at Ex. P.1 dated 17.5.1972 for valuable consideration of Rs. 4000/- Since then claims to be in possession and enjoyment. The Second plaintiff is the husband of the First Plai...
Tag this Judgment!Muniraj and anr. Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ570
ORDER1. The writ petition is filed challenging the correctness of the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal holding that the appeal filed by respondents 4 to 8 before it, is maintainable.Facts are as under:2. Lands bearing Sy. Nos. 130, 131, 134, 135 and 136 of 'Khayamgutta Binnamangala Village' are inam lands. After the coming into force of the Karnataka Personal and Miscellaneous Inams Abolition Act, 1954 petitioners herein filed applications for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the lands under their cultivation before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition (Hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Commissioner). While their applications were being enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner, respondents 4 to 8 herein filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure for getting impleaded on the ground that they are also interested persons being the purchasers of certain house sites situated in the lands. This application came to be re...
Tag this Judgment!Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. Authority for Clarification and Advance Ru ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-2004
Reported in: [2004]137STC197(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the KST Act', for short). The appellant is the licensee and registered user of the trademark 'Whirlpool' in terms of the Trademark & Trade name Licence Agreement dated February 24, 1995 executed between M/s. Whirlpool Corporation, USA, who is stated to be the proprietor and owner of the said trademark and the appellant. The licence granted to the appellant to use the trademark is non-transferable.2. On February 4, 2003, the appellant entered into an agreement with M/s. Applicomp India Limited (for short, 'Applicomp' or the 'Manufacturer') under which Applicomp agreed to manufacture and supply electronic products and electrical appliances such as refrigerators, washing machines, air-conditioner, etc., to the appellant on original equipment manufacture basis, as per the specifications of the appellant. Relevant portions of clauses 4, 5 and 6 of the agreement are extracted below :'...........
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Duttaiah and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: II(2004)ACC368; 2004ACJ1498; ILR2004KAR1975; 2004(2)KarLJ440
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The management of the K.S.R.T.C. has preferred this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act'), calling in question the judgment and award dated 2-11-2001 in M.V.C. No. 216 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional MACT, Hassan (for short, the 'MACT).2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are:On 26-10-1998 one Chandraiah was travelling as a passenger in a K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. KA-25-F-278 from Hassan to Ugane. When the bus stopped near Dyavegowdanahally High School in order to allow the school children to get into the bus, driver of the said bus without waiting for the signal to be given by the conductor moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner, at a high-speed, as a result of which Chandraiah who was on the footboard fell out of the bus sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to the same. The jurisdictional police prosecuted the driver of the bus and cha...
Tag this Judgment!Bamdev Nayak Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ435
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. Since common questions of law is involved in both the writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common order. Facts will be referred to with reference to W.P. No. 41444 of 2003.2. Facts in W.P. No. 41444 of 2003.The Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner' for convenience) invited tenders from intending contractors for taking up works for improvement of roads and drains in Tumkur at a huge cost under the directions of State of Karnataka and Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation, a project financed by the Asian Development Bank to be completed within a prescribed time, in the first instance, in the month of January 2003. The petitioner and one Rangegowda both contractors, had submitted their tenders. Petitioner had quoted Rs. 3,10,65,746/-. Before the tenders could be opened, the information regarding the rates quoted by the contractors were leaked to the press. The Commissioner...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India and ors. Vs. T.N. Jayaram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2268; 2004(5)KarLJ592; (2005)ILLJ88Kant
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. Appellants in Writ Appeal No. 6291/2000 were the respondents and the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 6565/2000 was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2979/2000.2. The petitioner as well as the respondents in the said Writ Petition have called in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge has held that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition, however, has directed the respondents in the said petition to continue the services of the petitioner with a direction to the Bank to absorb the services of the petitioner in any of the vacancies of the post of Messenger and in the event if there is no vacancy as on today, continue the services of the petitioner as a Messenger till the vacancy is created in the said post.3. The appellants (State Bank of India) in Writ Appeal No. 6291/ 2000 have called in question that part of the order wherein the learned Single Judge h...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gujjamm ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-2004
Reported in: III(2004)ACC327; 2005ACJ1712; [2004(102)FLR693]; 2004(4)KarLJ37
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This miscellaneous first appeal under Section 30(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act is filed by the insurer, calling in question the correctness of the judgment and award dated 25-1-2002 passed in Case No. CWC:CR:132 of 2001 by the Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Chitradurga (for short, 'Commissioner').2. Relevant facts necessary for determination of this appeal are.--One Nagaraja said to be aged 25 years employed by the fourth respondent herein, to work as a cleaner in the motor vehicle being a tipper bearing Reg. No. KA-16-5209 owned by the fourth respondent herein, while in the course of employment, sustained grievous injuries in an accident that occurred on 11-7-2001 at about 8.30 p.m. involving a motor vehicle, while crossing the road, near a dhaba at Maderahalli. The deceased Nagaraja, it is claimed, was mowed down by the lorry bearing Reg. No. TN.28-4668, driven at a high-speed and in a rash and negligent manner had caused the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »