Karnataka Court February 2004 Judgments
Sannatamma Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2257; ILR2004KAR2286; 2004(5)KarLJ496
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. The accused/appellant who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, for committing the matricide and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, has preferred this appeal.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:The accused - Sannatamma, his brother - P.W.1 Parameshwar and P.W.4 - Ravi Kiran were the children of the deceased - Laxmi. All were residents of Achave village of Borolli village in Ankola Taluk. According to the prosecution as there was incompatibility between the wife of the accused and the deceased-mother-in-law, accused was staying separate with his family members in the same village whereas the deceased P.W.1, 4 and their other family members were staying in one house. According to the prosecution some landed properties were in the name of the deceased and the accused was pestering to transfer the lands in his name. The deceased was reluctant to do so and it is alleged that she had rebuked the ...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Ajjanna and anr. Vs. S.M. Nagaraja and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004ACJ1469; ILR2004KAR3084; 2004(4)KarLJ64
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. M.F.A. No. 2048 of 2001 is filed by the owner of the vehicle who were the 1st and 2nd respondents before the Tribunal. Appellant in M.F.A. No. 4304 of 2000 was the claimant before the Tribunal. Claimant-S.M. Nagaraja presented claim petition claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident occurred on 26-6-1988. According to him, on 26-8-1988 at about 5 p.m. he was a pillion-rider of scooter bearing No. MER-2964 and one Rajanna was driving the scooter. When they were proceeding near Tubagere, a car bearing No. CKL-9086 which was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter due to which petitioner sustained grievous injuries on his head and also sustained fracture of left thigh. He was immediately shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, and was in-patient from 26-6-1988 to 6-8-1988. His leg was operated and a nail was inserted and due to which he sustained permanent disability and shor...
Tag this Judgment!Duregappa (Deceased) by L.R Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)KarLJ32
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the order dated 15-12-1981 in Case No. TNC.VR.210/1976-77 passed by the third respondent-Land Tribunal, Sorab Taluk, Shimoga District, in respect of Sy. No. 332 measuring 5 acres 22 guntas situated at Moodidoddikoppa Village, Sorab Taluk, Shimoga District. Further, he sought a direction to the third respondent-Land Tribunal to enquire, consider and dispose of his application bearing L.R. No. 717 of 1967 under Section 7 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act filed before and transferred from the II Additional Munsiff Court, Sagar, to the file of the third respondent herein.2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was a tenant of the land in question for more than 15 years from 1963-64. Respondent 4 and respondent 5-Gangadhara Rao, since deceased by his legal representatives, are the owners of the land in question. In the year 1963-64, respondents 4 and 5(a) forcibly dispossessed the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Thammaiah Chari Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Secretary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR1103]; ILR2004KAR3030; 2004(5)KarLJ488
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition was a police constable in the service of the State. In this petition, he has called in question the correctness of the order dated 11th January 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure 'R' to this petition, passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') affirming the order of dismissal passed against him.2, Sri Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the correctness of the impugned order Annexure-R, made two submission. Firstly, he submitted that since the impugned order was passed by the Administrative Member of the Tribunal, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Administrative Member had no authority in law to pass the impugned order. In this connection, he referred to us Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act,) and more particularly Sub-sections (5) and (6) of the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkaputtegowda Vs. Patel Dase Gowda (Deceased) by L.Rs and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)KarLJ546
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 108 of 1994 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 616 of 1989 on the file of Munsiff, Srirangapatna. The appellant is the plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession of 1/3 share in the suit lands. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. Respondent 1 and the husband of 4th defendant are the brothers of the plaintiff/appellant. One Patel Thimmegowda is the father of the plaintiff and first defendant and husband of defendant 4. According to the plaintiff the suit lands are the tenanted lands of the joint family. The brothers got divided under Ex. D. 4 during the lifetime of their father. The plaintiff was a minor then. After the partition and during the lifetime of Patel Thimmegowda the first defendant and husband of 4th defendant were granted occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.2. It is the contenti...
Tag this Judgment!Vishakantaiah T.N. Vs. Management of Mysore Petro Chemicals Limited an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR161]; ILR2004KAR4890; 2004(6)KarLJ59; (2005)ILLJ364Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the award of the Labour Court dated 3-4-1998 where, on a preliminary point the Labour Court held that the petitioner is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently passed an award dated 19-6-1998 rejecting his application filed under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act in which he has challenged the order of termination,2. The case of the petitioner in brief are as under:He was appointed as a Shift Operator (Process) on a salary of Rs. 600-00 per month on 9-2-1976. His appointment was subsequently confirmed on 12-2-1977. Annexure-A is the order of appointment. Annexure-B is the order of confirmation. Petitioner was promoted as Junior Officer (Process) with effect from 1st March, 1982. His salary was raised from Rs. 600-00 to Rs. 1100-00. Annexure-C, dated 9th March, 1982 is the letter evidencing the said fact. He was called upon to enter into a service contract ...
Tag this Judgment!G.V. Raju Vs. Smt. L.K. Gowramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)KarLJ317
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The petitioner-tenant calls in question the validity and correctness of the order dated 6th February, 2003 passed by the XII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in H.R.C. No. 1612 of 1997 allowing the eviction petition and directing the petitioner-tenant to vacate the petition premises.2. The respondent-land lord filed the petition pleading requirement of the premises for her own use. The petitioner was originally the tenant under the father of the landlord B. Shankaraiah. The petition premises was bequeathed by the said Shankaraiah in favour of the respondent. After the death of Shankaraiah the respondent became the owner of the premises by virtue of the Will executed by her father. In the eviction petition presented by her, it was pleaded that she was residing along with her husband and children in a rented premises by paying a rent of Rs. 3,080/- per month and that she has no other immovable property other than the petition premises and...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. C. Subba Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant210; 2004(2)ARBLR271(Kar); 2004(3)KarLJ479
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Petitioners have filed this civil petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) for setting aside the award dated 28-7-2003. The Registry has raised an objection about maintainability of the petition.2. Petitioners rely on Section 42 of the Act to contend that a petition under Section 34 of the Act is maintainable before the High Court. Section 42 reads as under :42. Jurisdiction :-- Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an Arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made In a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court.' Section 34 of the Act provides for recourse to a Court against an arbitral award. The term 'Court' has been defin...
Tag this Judgment!L. Shanthakumari Ias and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1450
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions are occupying high posts in the State of Karnataka. The prayer in these Writ Petitions is for a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith demolish all the unauthorised constructions made by Respondent No.5 in and outside the premises at No. 58, 21st Main, 5th A cross, B.T.M. Layout II stage, Bangalore - 76 and to prevent respondent No. 5 from running the school or using the said premises for any other purpose except for residential purpose.2. The respondent No. 5 has filed statement of objections stating that under zonal regulations, it is permissible to use a residential premises for the purpose of running a school. It is further stated that all the petitioners have encroached the area reserved for park and the Government land and unauthorized construction and therefore, they have no moral right to come to this Court alleging that respondent No. 5 has no right to use the residential premises for the purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Thimmappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ1968
K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29-8-1998 passed by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S. C. No. 8/1992 mainly on the ground that though the prosecution has placed cogent and consistent evidence with regard to the manner in which the incident took place about 50 meters away from the land survey No. 34/4 of Hampanasandra village within the limits of Gowribidanur police station, on account of that incident late Yellappa was severely injured and on the very same day he died while undergoing treatment in the Nimhans hospital but the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted all the respondents-accused without appreciating the medical evidence which corroborated the ocular evidence, both injured witnesses and other eyewitnesses. Hence this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25-11-1990 at about 8 a.m. respondents-1 to 4, 6 to 12 and deceased accused-5 and 13 with a common object to commit rioting, formed themselv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »