Karnataka Court August 2005 Judgments
Vinaykumar Soorinje and anr. Vs. the Returning Officer/Tahsildar and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4835; 2005(6)KarLJ484
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. Learned standing counsel Sri B.G. Sridharan accepts notice for respondent-2. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent-1. Third respondent is represented by the caveator. Sri GB. Shastry, Learned Counsel accepts notice for respondents-4 to 10. Though this matter is posted for preliminary hearing, with the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for all the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.2. Petitioners-1 and 2 are elected as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively to the second respondent-APMC, Bikampady, Mangalore. The petitioners assailing the correctness of the order passed on I.A.II dated 20-8-2005 in Misc. case No. 56/2005 by the learned Principal District Judge, Mangalore, have presented this writ petition. The first respondent issued the calendar of events dated 30-8-2005 vide Annexure-C under Section 41(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'APMC Act') read with Rule 44 of Karnataka Agricult...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Represented by Its Deputy Manager Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-2005
Reported in: III(2006)ACC878; 2007ACJ1659; ILR2006KAR2017
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident, hence,. they are taken up for consideration together, heard and disposed of by this common, order.2. The petitioner in M.V.C. No. 255/97 sustained fracture of shaft of left femur in a motor vehicle accident. The petitioner was an inpatient in the hospital for about 15 days. There is shortening of lag by 6 cms. The total body disability is assessed at 30%. Petitioner is a mason. His income to be assessed at Rs. 1,500/- per month, in the absence of income proof. The petitioner is in appeal seeking enhancement.3. The insurer has filed M.F.A. No. 5966/2001 seeking avoidance of the liability on the ground that there was no policy. 4. On re-examination of facts and evidence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and agony; Rs. 15,000/- towards medical and incidental expanses relating to treatment; Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomfort on account of disability; Rs. 91,800/- (450 X 12 X 17...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. B. Ranganna Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences, Gkvk
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: [2005(107)FLR692]; ILR2005KAR4857
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent-University to issue the petitioner an interview letter for the post of Director of Instruction (Agri) pursuant to the advertisement dated 5.10.2004 calling for application to the post.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a B.E. Graduate in Mechanical Engineering and a Gold Medallist in M.E. (Ag) in Farm Power and Machinery from Tamilnadu Agricultural University. Petitioner also possesses Ph.D. in Agricultural and Bio-systems Engineering from McGill University, Canada. Petitioner joined the services in the respondent-University as Instructor in Farm Machinery to teach basic Agricultural Engineering subjects and also to undertake research in the same area. Petitioner claims that he has been periodically promoted and is presently working as Professor of Agricultural Engineering Sciences with effect from 30.5.1996.3. The respondent-University issued a notification dated 5.10.2004 invi...
Tag this Judgment!E. Jayaram and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Alias Bhagyalakshmi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4862; 2006(5)KarLJ510
ORDER II RULE 2-LEAVE OF COURT-TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882-SECTION 53-A-Part performance of contract (Agreement of Sale)-Respondent put in possession of the Schedule property by virtue of agreement of sale-Whether Section 53A would statutorily protect the possession of respondent-Whether the respondent who is put in possession on the property whether can he lease out the property in favour of third party-HELD-The Section requires that the agreement holder in possession ought to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Moreover, the agreement holder or his nominee should claim a right expressly conferred under the contract. The respondent cannot claim the right to lease out the property in favour of a third party. Such a right not being expressly conferred under the agreement of sale, it cannot be gainsaid that the respondent was enabled under the agreement to, induct third party as a tenant and that the third party could claim under the respondent and seek to protect...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. G. Venkatesh Prasad and anr. Vs. University of Agriculture Science ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-29-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5283
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking similar relief. As the grievance made by both the petitioners are similar in nature, both these writ petitions are clubbed together and are heard and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 13547/2005 has applied for the post of Director of Extension, whereas the petitioner in W.P. No. 13543/ 2005 has applied for the post of Director of Instructions. Both the petitioners have sought directions to the respondent- University to call them for interview to the post to which they have applied which was scheduled to be held on 19.04.2005 and 18.04.2005 respectively and defer the process of appointment until the petitioners are considered for appointment. The contention of the petitioners are that they have applied for the post, as mentioned above under the respondent-University for which Notification dated 05.10.2004 calling for applications was issued. Petitioners claim that they are fully...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited Vs. R.K. Powergen Pri ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5468; 2006(2)KarLJ608
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is presented to set aside the order passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission in O.P. No. 3/05. The following reliefs are sought by the petitioner.'a) Setting aside order dated 7.4.2005 passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission in O.P. No. 3/2005 (Annexure-N) and dismiss the said petition;b) Grant of costs of proceedings;c) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.'2. Facts which are germane for disposal of this petition can be summarised as follows:The petitioner and the respondent company entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (for short TPA') dated 8.10.2001 for putting up 20 MW power generation unit. The PPA was approved by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (for short 'Commission') by the order dated 12.10.2001 under Section 25 of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999. A copy ...
Tag this Judgment!Murigayya Gurubasayya Muttinamath (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. the Land Trib ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-2005
Reported in: 2006(5)KarLJ475
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The instant land reforms revision petition is directed against the order dated 17th March, 1989 passed by the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bagalkot in L.R.A. (TR)No. 53 of 1987, setting-aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Badami, dated 3rd December, 1981 in No. KLR.T.S.R. 2488.2. The third respondent herein-Sri Yellappa Neelappa Bharamagoudra, claiming to be a tenant in respect of land in Sy. No. 60/1+2, measuring 16 acres 39 guntas situate at Gangana Budihal Village, Badami Taluk, Bijapur District is alleged to have filed Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights before the first respondent-Land Tribunal, Badami on 15th March, 1989. The said application filed by third respondent-applicant had come up for consideration before first respondent-Land Tribunal, Badami on 3rd December, 1981 in KLR.T.SR.2488. The Land Tribunal, after evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, and on the basis of the admission stated to have been made by third respo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chikmagalur Club
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4673; [2007]290ITR522(KAR); [2007]290ITR522(Karn)
H.L. Dattu, J.:1. Since the parties in these reference proceedings are common, and since the issues involved are inter-related, both these cases are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Facts in Income-tax Referred Case No. 120/1998 (Old TRC Nos. 120-123/1998) are as under :The assessee is a club registered under the provisions of Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. For the asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, the assesses-club had filed the return of wealth in the status of AOP declaring net wealth of Rs. 'nil'. Rejecting the claim made in the returns filed, the WTO had assessed the wealth of the assessee in the status of individual and charged wealth-tax, under the provisions of the WT Act, 1957 ('Act' for short).3. In the appeals filed against these assessment orders, it was the stand of the assesses-club, that it is an AOP and not liable for payment of wealth-tax. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment y...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Radha Krishnan Vs. Vijayan Nambiar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)ALD(Cri)47; I(2006)BC535; [2006]130CompCas530(Kar); 2005CriLJ4184; ILR2005KAR4486; 2005(5)KarLJ473
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the Complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Challenging the judgment dated 8.10.2002 made in Criminal Appeal No. 702/2000 on the file of XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2000 made in C C No 18732/1997 on the file of XV Additional C M M, Bangalore City, and acquitting the Accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short,' the Act').2. The Respondent/Accused is represented by Sri S. V. Tilgul.3. Heard arguments.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Revision Petition by the Complainant may be stated as under:It is alleged that the Accused being a friend of the Complainant had borrowed loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Complainant and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 2.5% per month and in discharge of the said liablity, the...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Rama Hegde and ors. Vs. Timmanna Mahabal Hegde and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ643
Anand Byrareddy, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order passed by the District Judge in petitions filed by the appellants under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The brief facts leading to these appeals are as follows.--The father of the appellants Sri Rama Ganesh Hegde has filed an application on 2-7-1954 under Section 18(1) of the Act, which was registered as Enquiry No. 97 of 1954 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. This application, seeking to register 'Shri Shambu Linga Deva Temple' as a public temple, was allowed by an order dated 10-1-1955. However, the father of the appellants, the applicants therein had challenged the same before the Charity Commissioner, by way of a revision petition and the said revision petition was allowed and by an order dated 25-1-1994, the Charity Commissioner had remanded the matter to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for a fresh enquiry. It is at this juncture, that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »