Karnataka Court June 2011 Judgments

Shabeerabi and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2011(4)KantLJ339; 2011(4)KCCR3012

(Prayer: This Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated by preliminary notification dt. 9.10.1997 issued by the R2 vide Anx-A and the final notification dt.30.4.1999 issued by the respondent vide 13, 98 marked as Anx-B have lapsed and quash both the notification and etc.,) 1. Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the Act], a statute of the bygone era, a relic of the past, which can play havoc with the lives and livelihood of land owners, particularly farming community in this country, has continued to rule roost even after our country became independent and has become republic, but the colonial concept of ‘eminent domain’ has plagued the citizens, has weighed heavily on the judges and courts and the power of compulsory acquisition of private lands in the name of public purpose has gone on merrily, in our country and more often than not such acquisition of private la...

Sri. Bhaskar Shesh Naik. Vs. Sri. Kishan Hegde.

Court: Karnataka

JUDGEMENT 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 29.7.04 passed by the II Addl.Civil Judge Jr.Dn.J and JMFC, Udupi in C.C.No.4266/98 acquitting the accused of The offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for short N.I.Act. 2. The complainant had filed a complaint on 7.9.98 against the accused alleging that the accused had issued a cheque for Rs. 2,50.000/- in respect of part payment/discharge of the due/liability and the cheque when presented, was dishonoured for want of funds and when a notice was issued to the accused demanding cheque amount, the accused has not paid the amount and hence, he has committed an offence u/s. 138 of N.I. Act. In order to prove the ease, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 who is die Manager of the Bank and produced Ex.P-1 to P-10. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. He has stated since the brother of the complainant was working with the accused in the transport business bef...

Chinnabasavashetty, So Madashetty Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDER 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.309/10 of Gundlupet Police Station. Chamarajanagar, for the offences punishable under Section 394 of IPC and under Sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The Gundlupet police have registered a case in Crime No.309/10 against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act on the complaint of Madashetty. It is alleged in the complaint, that, on 13.9.2010 at 6.00 p.m. there were trees grown in Sy.No.868/68 in the land of complainant and accused Nos.l and 2 cut the trees and they were carrying the same. At that time complainant objected, then they assaulted (he complainant. Then the accused throw the sandal wood pieces at the spot, and ran awa...

Smt. Venkatamma Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and Another

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order passed by the R1 DTD 3.9.10 vide at Annex-G.) 1. This writ petition is a typical example of the manner of functioning of revenue officials, particularly, higher revenue officials holding the rank of Special Deputy Commissioners as to how they go about their work and more so, when they are exercising their suo motu revisional jurisdiction for reviewing any proceedings relating to entries being made in the revenue records for changing the entry from the name of one person in favour of any other person who claims that interest in the subject land has passed on from the erstwhile person to latter one claiming or seeking for his name to be entered in the revenue records. Revenue entries by themselves do not necessarily confer title and on the other hand, they only reflect the right, title and interest a person may otherwise have or has otherwise acquired. Unfortunate...

R. Nanjappa Vs. the State of Karnataka Revenue Department Vidhana Soud ...

Court: Karnataka

(Prayer: This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records on the file of the 2nd Respondent and quash Ann-L order Dtd.4.2.11 passed by 2nd respondent in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.1/P15 measuring 6 acres situated at Arebinnamangala Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Addl. Taluk, by allowing the above writ petition and etc/-. 1. This writ petition is also one for questioning the legality of the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore North and Bangalore Additional North Taluk, Bangalore, purporting to be in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Though Mr. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate, seeks for some accommodation to enable the State Government to file their objections etc., particularly for indicating the position that the land in fact has already been acqui...

Shankar Mahadev Bidri Ips, Bangalore Vs. Union Public Service Commissi ...

Court: Karnataka

1. The petitioner herein has assailed the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Original Application No.35/2011 dt.21st April 2011, which application was filed by the 4th Respondent Dr.D.V.Guru Prasad. The petitioner is an IPS Officer of 1978 batch. He joined the Police service on 16.7.1978. He has put in service of 32 years 6 months. He has worked in different places and he has been awarded with several medals in appreciation of the service rendered by him. 4th Respondent – Dr.D.V.Guru Prasad is also a senior IPS Officer of 1976 batch. 2. The controversy that has arisen in this case is in regard to the filling up the post of Head of the Police Force of Karnataka (H.O.P.F.). The cause of action has arisen on account of Dr.Ajaikumar Singh, the former DGP who has retired or attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2011. The petitioner herein who has put in 30 years of service addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary, ...

R. Vijayendra Babu Vs. K. Narayana and Another

Court: Karnataka

1. Petitioner aggrieved by the order Annexure-F of the 2nd respondent-Assistant PF Commissioner and Recovery Officer directing issue of warrant of arrest and commit the petitioner to civil prison, has presented this petition. 2. Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections dated nil of the 2nd respondent, inter alia contending that M/s. Spectra Lamps Private Limited, covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’), committed default in remitting provident fund contribution, following which an order under Section 7-A of the Act was passed, determining non-remittance of Rs.15,34,123/- towards contributions for the period 09/1998 to 02/2006. Failure to comply with the said order, led to issue of recovery certificates bearing Nos.119, 06, 55 and 30, dated 16-1-2002, 20-5-2002, 10-1-2005 and 8-4-2008, respectively, under Section 8 of the Act. Recovery Officer/respondent on receipt of the certificates, init...

Sri RahamathullA. SdA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.

Court: Karnataka

JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal is by the accused who suffered judgment of conviction at the hands of the trial court, in as much as, the trial court convicted him in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. The trial court sentenced him to six months S.I and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in respect of the conviction u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in respect of the other offence referred to above, the appellant was sentenced to one year S.I and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Default sentence was also passed. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the appellant was working as Second Division Assistant in the Office of the Commercial Tax, 11th Circle, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore, and in connection with the issuance of clearance certificate to the complainant Abdul W&jid;, the appellant demanded and cecepted Rs.500/- as illegal gratification on 30.10.02 at about 3.15 p.m. Therefore, the complain...

Smt. Sonnamma Wo. Late HanumanThe Gowda and ors. Vs. Sri. Chinnappa So ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This sec on appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2009 in O.S. No. 152/2003 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bangalore Rural District and the judgment and decree dated 26.1 1.2010 in R.A. No. 42/2009 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, dismissing the suit of plaintiff for declaration of title and injunction. 2. Appellant is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court. In this judgment for convenience the parties are refened to their status before the trial Court. 3. Plaintiff contends 'hat old survey No. 117 and new survey No. 85 in all measuring 110 acres 4 guntas situated at Paramanahalli village, Jadgenahalti hobli, Hoskote taluk, was inam land. From the time of plaintiffs grandfather they were in possession and enjoyment of 80 acres of land in survey No. 117. The Special Deputy Commissioner for lnam Abolition by his order dated 30.11.1966 in case No. 8038 and 8...

Venkatashetty, Major, Son of Thimmasetty. Vs. Ms.Webbs Farm Mechanisat ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12.12.2002, passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.J Hassan, in O.S.No. 149/1994. 2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plain (ii). 3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant-plaintiff has filed 4. In brief, the facts are the appellant-plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No. 149/1994 for recovery of a sum of 1.50.000/-by way of damages with interest. The case of the appellant -plaintiff was that the second respondent herein was the manufacturer of farm equipments namely M.F.Tractors, its implements, accessories and spare parts. The second respondent was supplying and distributing the equipments to the customers and getting the service rendered through the first respondent in the specified area of the State including the Hassan district. The first respondent is a dealer of the second respondent. Two years prior to the filing of the suit, the first respondent s office r...