Karnataka Court November 2005 Judgments

A. Susheela W/O Late Narayana Kalluraya Vs. the 1st Land Tribunal by I ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(6)KarLJ254

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 23.6.1981 passed by the 1st respondent i.e., Land Tribunal granting occupancy right in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of the land in Sy.Nos. 116/2 measuring 23 cents, 116/1B-1C 10 cents and 100/2 measuring 28 cents of Kemminje village of Puttur Taluk, D.K. on the ground that the impugned order is not a considered order and also not a speaking order. Even though deceased respondent No. 3 has filed form No. 7 but not included the aforesaid three items of the land, the Tribunal conferred occupancy right in his favour even though respondent No. 3 never stated before the Tribunal that he is also in possession and enjoyment of the said land as a lawful tenant in respect of 3 items of the land immediately prior to 1.3.1974. But the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons in the impugned order under challenge at Annexure 'A' and failed to apply its judicious min...

Uppar Malleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition is by a purchaser of agricultural land measuring an extent of 0.54 acres of land in Sy. No. 62/B and also an extent of 0.85 acres of land in Sy. No. 63/B of Chikkajayeganur Village, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District, in terms of a sale deed dated 3-11-1976 claiming to have been executed by one Shiddalingappa.2. Though the petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of this land the 4th respondent one Smt. Dasara Lingamma, W/o. Shivappa claiming to be a granddaughter of the original grantee had filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2001 under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the 'Act') praying for invalidation of the present sale transaction and the earlier transactions on the premise that the original grant being one in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community; that it had been imposed with...

Dr. Madhav Shankar Pandit and ors. Vs. Dr. Ganapati Narayan Sabhahit a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR657

V. Gopalagowda, J.1. This review Petition is filed by respondents 5 to 7 in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 requesting this Court to review the judgment dt. 8/8/2005 passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 and further requested to set aside the same and dismiss the appeal with costs urging various legal contentions.2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to, as has been assigned in the Misc. First Appeal.3. The first ground urged in this petition is that no appeal lies Under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the BPT Act) against the order dt. 24/9/2001 passed in Misc. No. 26/1998 on the file of the District Judge, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar, rejecting the claim of second appellant to appoint him as the Trustee of the Trust of SREE Vinayaka Devaru Temple, Idagunji. Therefore the order passed by this Court allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction, hence the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers f...

A. Yadava (Deceased by Lr) and Etc. Vs. the Authorised Officer and Dep ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1568

B. Padmaraj, J. 1. In all these three matters, which are placed before us, a single Judge Bench of this Court having doubted the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer v. Kallur Rangappa reported in : ILR1986KAR1029 , has referred the following question of law for consideration by a larger Bench:Whether the Criminal Revision Petition is maintainable before the High Court against an Order of the Sessions Judge passed under Section 71D(1) of the Karnataka Forest Act?2. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of law arising for our consideration in the matter under reference.3. In the case of Divisional Forest Officer v. Kallur Rangappa reported in : ILR1986KAR1029 , the Division Bench of this Court has ruled as under :10. Any order made under Section 71A is appealable under Sections 71D to the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed....

Manipal Finance Corporation Limited Vs. L.N.K. Murthy

Court: Karnataka

ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. In this matter, the only point for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the Court below on the point of limitation is just and proper or not. As I see, the Court below had passed the impugned order based on the evidence on record. It was argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be held good, for according to him, the Arbitrator had sent copy of the award to the respondent as per the address set out in the suit hire purchase agreement-Ex. P. 2. He had also cited a reported decision of the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr. : 1999CriLJ4606 . In the said case, as I see, the Supreme Court had held in para 24 as hereunder:24. No doubt Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not require that the notice should be given only by 'post'. Nonetheless the principle incorporated in Section 27 (quoted above) can profitably be imported in a case where t...

Kanoria Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2005(190)ELT295(Kar)

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. These two writ petitions are by assessees under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [for short, the Act] in the context of denial of what is known as Modvat credit which the petitioners had availed of in respect of high speed diesel (HSD) oil, which according to the petitioners was used as an input in the production of electricity at their units wherein they manufacture cement. The scheme of availment of Modvat credit under the Act is governed by the provisions of Rules 57A, 57B, 57C to 57V of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 [for short, the Rules].2. In the case of writ petitioner in W.P. No. 35766 of 2000, the dispute arose in the context of Modvat credit that had been availed by the petitioner on the HSD oil used as input for production of electricity in turn used for manufacturing cement during the period December 1997 to March 1998, which credit though availed of by the petitioner was directed to be reversed in terms of endorsement dated 19...

N. Chandrasekharaiah Vs. the Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Council ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR6095; 2006(1)KarLJ357

ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is calling in question the order dated 03.06.1999 passed by the 1st respondent thereby promoting Sri. S. Dwarakanath, the respondent no. 3 herein as Editor of Debates. Further, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the 1st respondent to promote him to the post of Editor of Debates in the place of 3rd respondent with respective effect from 03.06.1999 with all consequential benefits. Petitioner has also challenged the Karnataka Legislative Council Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1998 insofar as they prescribe degree from a recognised University with Kannada as second language or as an optional subject as academic qualification for the post of Editor of Debates.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Kannada reporter in the Karnataka Legislature Secretariat and that he reported for duty on 27.04.1973. That he possessed the requisite qualification prescribed for the post name...

Hayath Khan Vs. the Deputy Labour Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2006(108)FLR632]; ILR2005KAR6001; 2006(1)KarLJ365

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. My heart bleeds for the Child Labour in terms of the facts of this case.Petitioner is running a motor cycle shop in the name and style of Best Service Centre. Second respondent visited the shop of the petitioner and inspected the same on 18-7-2003. He reported that petitioner has employed child labour. He registered a case alleging contravention of Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 alleging that petitioner has employed Child Labour called Khaza-m-Shekh aged about 11 years. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner' as to why compensation should not be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue. Thereafter a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. Petitioner filed an application seeking for permission to cross-examine with regard to the report, which was allowed. Petitioner filed his written arguments. First respondent thereafter has chosen to pass the an order imposing Rs. 20,000/ as compensation to be deposited t...

Aravind and ors. Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kiadb and a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR922; 2006(3)KarLJ403

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of 21 acres 28 guntass of lands in Sy. Nos. 165/1 and 166 of M.T. Sagar village in Hubli Taluk. The said lands had been acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. Being not satisfied with the compensation paid, petitioners made representation as per Annexure-H seeking to pay proper market value for the acquired lands. The said request is rejected under Annexure-J dated 22-11-2003 on the ground that the amount has been paid as per the agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (here in after referred to as the Act'). Petitioners are seeking to quash the same and to permit them to seek reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquistion Act.2. Statement of objections is filed on behalf of the first respondent justifying the impugned communication. The reason mentioned in the impugned communication is reiterated and prayer is made for dismissal of the writ petition.3. T...

Appaiah Vs. Archak Laxminarayana Achar and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2005KAR6050; 2006(1)KarLJ371

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner in the instant Land Reforms Revision Petition, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 30th November 1988 passed in ALRAA No. 4/1988 on the file of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickballapur, confirming the order dated 6th January 1988 passed in proceedings No. LRM. 1551/74- 75, 106:80-81, 107:80-81, 108:80-81, 109:80-81, 110:80-81 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Chintamani and also the order dated 6th January 1988 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Chintamani, has presented the instant revision petition.2. Petitioner herein, claiming to be tenant in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 16, measuring 02 acres 23 guntas, situate at Sonnsettihalli, Chintamani Taluk, had filed Form No. 7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the said land which was attached to Sri. Anjaneya swamy temple, under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for brevity 'Act'). The said application filed by petitioner had co...