Karnataka Court March 2005 Judgments
State of Karnataka Vs. K. Farid Alias K. Farisaheb
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: III(2005)ACC517; 2005CriLJ2993; ILR2005KAR2018; 2005(4)KarLJ224
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This appeal is by the State in so far as the inadequacy of sentences for the offence under Section 304-A IPC imposed on the respondent-accused by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Criminal Appeal No. 49/93, dated 15-10-1998 reducing the sentence to S.I. for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for five months by modifying the sentence of S.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for two months passed by the learned Prl. J.M.F.C. Ranebennur in CC No. 18791 dated 22-6-1993.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The accused K. Farid alias K. Farisahed was charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by the Ranebennur police, alleging that on 5-10-1990 at about 10.30 a.m. the accused being the driver of the truck bearing registration No. ABC 6359 drove the said vehicle at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner from Ranebennur side towards Haven on Poon...
Tag this Judgment!K. Narayana Reddy Vs. Ramakrishna Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2421; 2006(5)KarLJ255
Huluvadi G. Ramesh J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 96 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the I Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS 2400/1985 dated 4.11.1995.RFA76671995 is an appeal against the judgment and decree of specific performance passed against the appellant/defendant directing him to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in suit bearing No. 18/A measuring 85 ft. East-West, 24+25/ 2 ft. and North-South situate at I phase, Gokul I Stage, Bangalore within three months from the date of the judgment, on payment of the balance consideration after deducting the advance amount paid.RFA 768/1995 is filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit seeking for specific performance against the defendent in respect of the adjacent marginal land to the suit property.2. The plaintiff's case in brief is that the plaintiff and defendant are co-brothers. On 17.12.1975, both the parties entered into...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Soumi Samuel Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secreta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2406; 2005(5)KarLJ596
ORDERS. Abdul Nazcer, J.1. The petitioner had joined A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Mangalore (for Short College) for the study of Masler of Denial Surgery Course ('MDS' for Short) in oral and Maxillofacial Surgery subject for the academic year 2001-2002. The College is affiliated to 2nd respondent -University. The Petitioner appeared for the MDS Examination held by the University in September 2004 and failed in the said examination. He has secured 190 marks out of 400 marks in theory paper and 150 out of 300 in practicals and Viva-Voce put together. As per the relevant ordinance of the University, the minimum marks for a pass are 50% in theory and 50% in practical including clinical and viva-voce. The Petitioner is short by 10 marks in theory paper for a pass. He filed an application for re-totaling of his marks. The result of re-totaling was informed on 14.02.2005 with no change of marks. On 15.02.2005 he filed a representation to the University (as per Annexure '...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ramu Vs. Sunil Vallapure and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2823; 2005(5)KarLJ143
ORDERShylendra Kumar, J.1. This is an election petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (for short the Act) by a candidate who had aspired to get elected to the Karnataka Assembly from Shahabad constituency in Chittapur Taluk of Gulbarga District. It was a case of so near and yet so far for the petitioner who had managed to poll a total number of 31,602 valid votes as against 32,610 votes polled by the respondent No. 1 who was declared elected by the Returning Officer while announcing the result of the elections.2. It is this declaration that is called in question through this election petition by the petitioner, the nearest rival to the elected candidate. A perusal of the pleadings in the election petition, inter alia, indicates that the election is sought to be set aside mainly on the ground of the returned candidate having indulged in corrupt practices and also that he was disqualified on the date of the election for contesting the election ...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Gurumurthy Reddy and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)KarLJ341
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The dispute brought before this Court in this writ appeal relates to the acquisition of 3 acres 4 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 172/3 situate in Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (for short, 'the Schedule land') under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act'). Earlier, the Schedule land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'L.A. Act') by issuing Section 4(1) Notification dated 3-12-1986 and Section 6(1) declaration dated 8-1-1988. Ultimately, that acquisition was annulled by the Apex Court by virtue of its order dated 21-2-1995 made in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 13114 and 13339 of 1991 (Amarjyothi House Building Co-operative Society Limited v State of Karntaka) following its own decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 3011 to 3019 of 1995 arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11482 to 11490 of 1991 (HMT House Building Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore v Syed Khader and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Controller N.W.K.R.T.C. Vs. Ismail
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)ACC708; 2006ACJ486; ILR2005KAR5153; 2006(3)KarLJ631
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration:'Whether the assessment of the disability by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner at 80% is bad in law and contrary to the statute?'2. The respondent is the employee of the appellant-NWKRTC working as a driver. The respondent sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident in the course of employment. As a result, he suffered amputation of the right leg below the knee. The medical opinion discloses 60% disability. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner has taken the disability as 80%. Whereas, the workmen Compensation Act schedule declares the disability as 50%. The injury is the scheduled injury. Therefore, disability percentage stated in the schedule should be taken into consideration and not any other evidence.3. In that view, calculating compensation at the rate of 80% disability is bad in view and against the statutory provision. The income of the respondent is taken at Rs. 2000/- p.m....
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ518
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 9-8-1999 passed by the 3rd respondent in Appeal No. 478 of 1998 vide Annexure-A and the order dated 17-7-1998 passed by the 2nd respondent in Dispute No. A(I&M;)DIS:D2:1940:96-97, has presented this writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that; the 1st respondent is working in the petitioner-Bank as a Manager and while he was discharging his duty as District Manager of Raichur District during 1993, the cheque leaf bearing No. 120600 with the counterfoil was missing from the cheque book relating to PCRD Bank, Raichur. It was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent by M.Y. Manganahalli Superintendent of the Bank on 5-12-1994. The 1st respondent, being the District Manager had not taken prompt action in informing the State Bank of Hyderabad for stoppage of payment of the cheque. That missing cheque was encashed by one Kuberappa of Raghavendra Electric...
Tag this Judgment!Premila and ors. Vs. Shaliwan and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: III(2006)ACC230; 2006ACJ890; 2006(3)KarLJ634
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The claimants are the L.Rs. of the deceased Venkat, a driver of Trax Tempo bearing registration No. MH 06-C 2070. On 24.1.2000 around 3.30 a.m., the deceased was driving Trax Tempo and proceeding from Hyderabad to Bidar on NH-9. The driving of the vehicle was in the course of employment. The deceased driver stopped the vehicle at 3.30 a.m., to attend to call of nature, while returning to get into the vehicle, he was hit by a lorry and was killed. The accident is a case of hit and run. The eyewitness corroborates the claimants' version that the deceased was hit by a lorry while getting back to the vehicle from call of nature. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has held that the accident in question is held to be in the course of employment and out of employment and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,74,340 against the owner. The claim against the insurer is dismissed on the ground that the accident has not occurred while in use of the motor vehicle. The claimants a...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Devraj and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) by Its Secretary, Minist ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2057; 2005(4)KarLJ239
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. In all these petitions, the petitioners have questioned the legality and validity of the orders passed on various dates by the competent authority, terminating their services from the respective posts held by them as Instructions/Lecturers/Technicians in BSF Institute of Technology with a further direction, directing respondents to give all the benefits, emoluments, salaries and other legal benefits flowing there from to these petitioners.2. The brief facts of the case are that, petitioners herein were appointed as Instructors/Lecturers/Technicians in the Border Security Force (BSF) Institute of Technology, which is affiliated to AICTE. In pursuance of the notification issued by the competent authority, these petitioners have attended their interviews and thereafter, they have been appointed. Accordingly, the appointment orders have also been issued subject to certain 12 conditions. Thereafter, probationary period has been declared by the competent authority in r...
Tag this Judgment!Channappa Vs. the Assistant Executive Engineer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR2416; 2005(4)KarLJ422
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The dispute with regard to the alleged termination of service of the petitioner by the respondent having been referred to the Labour Court by the Govt. of Karnataka under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the Act, was registered as Ref. No. 123/1994. The petitioner filed a claim statement alleging that he was appointed on daily wages w.e.f. 21.9.1983 and having served continuously for more than 240 days in a year, was illegally terminated on 24.9.1991 in violation of the provisions of Section 25(N) of the Act.2. The claim statement was opposed by the respondent by filing the statement of objections inter alia contending that there was no relationship of employer and employee and in addition, that the respondent was not an industry within the meaning o f the said term in the Act. Further, it was contended that the claim was barred by limitation. Though issues were framed and sufficient opportunities extended for over a period of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »