Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1959Kant75; AIR1959Mys75; (1958)36MysLJ634
ORDERA. Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitioners before me have filed Original Suit No. 7/1958 before the Court of the District Munsiff of Mangalore for a declaration that the order of eviction passed by the appellate authority (the Principal Subordinate Judge of South Kanara) in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11/1953 on his file is without jurisdiction, ultra vires and is a nullity, and for an injunction restraining the defendants (respondents before me) from executing the said order and taking possession of the house, door No. 22-4, with its outhouses and appurtenant land without payment of compensation for the said house.Along with the plaint they filed interlocutory application No. 14 of 1936 under Section 151 and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the issue of a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from executing the aforesaid eviction order and obtaining possession thereunder pending disposal of the suit.An ex parte injunction was granted, but the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001(1)KarLJ468
1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 25-11-2000 passed in I.A. IV in O.S. No. 4736 of 2000 on the following facts. 2. The defendant is the appellant and respondents are the plaintiffs and they would be referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction. According to the plaint averment, the plaintiffs are entitled for free flow of air and light from 'B' Schedule property and any attempt on the part of the defendant in putting up the construction required to be injuncted. The Trial Court granted the injunction on the ground that the proposed construction conies in the way of enjoyment of the property belonging to plaintiff. An application was filed seeking to vacate the said order, The Trial Judge heard the matter and after hearing he rejected the I.A. The said order of rejection is challenged before me. 3. I have heard Sri G.S. Vishweshwara, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant and Sri B.L. Jagad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF SEPTEMBER2019BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6823/2016 (WC)BETWEEN : SANDEEP B.N. S/O NAGESH B.R. AGED ABOUT34YEARS R/AT NO.410, NEW NO.14, BALAJI RESIDENCY, 6TH MAIN ROAD GOKUL2D STAGE, 2ND PHASE BENGALURU -560 022... APPELLANT R.O.2B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD BENGALURU560027 POLICY ISSUED BY ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.87, M.G.ROAD FORT MUMBAI400001 BY ITS MANAGER (BY SRI SHRIPAD V.SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND:1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 2. B.N.SANTHOSH (BY SRI C.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) MAJOR R/AT NO.410, NEW NO.14, BALAJI RESIDENCY, 6TH MAIN ROAD GOKUL2D STAGE, 2ND PHASE BENGALURU560022 RESPONDENTS2THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS301) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED0208.2016 PASSED BY THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & XXVI ADDITIONA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1980(1)KarLJ200; (1980)ILLJ123Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In these four writ appeals, preferred against the orders of the single Judge dismissing the four writ petitions presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by registered owners of coffee estates under the Indian Coffee Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the Coffee Board, is an industry carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Central Government or is an institution established not for purposes of profit, and consequently excepted from the application of the Payment of Bonus Act in view of cls. (iv) and (v) (c), respectively, of S. 32 of the Act ?' 2. The appellants are registered owners of coffee estates under the Act. The first respondent-Coffee Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has been brought into existence by the Act. With the approval of the Central Government, the Board decided to pay bonus to its employees under the provisions of the Payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3139; 1995(6)KarLJ476
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. These Writ Petitions are preferred against certain acquisition of lands made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short The L.A. Act') for the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees' House Building Co-operative Society Limited, High Court Building, Bangalore. The first two of these Writ Petitions are filed styling to be Public Interest Litigation by two practising Advocates of this Court and the third one is filed by an owner of a piece of land involved in the acquisition.2. The facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions can be stated thus :The Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees' House Building Co-operative Society (in short 'the Society') was registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 on 11.8.1983. It seems the members of the Society includes the members of the Judicial Department, members of the Subordinate Judiciary and also certain sitting, transferred and retired Judges of this Court. It seems the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1417; 1991(1)KarLJ522
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These Appeals are directed against the Common Order dated 8-9-1989 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.Ps.Nos. 8546 to 8548 of 1988 connected with W.P.No.15377/1988, allowing the Writ Petitions partly and disallowing a certain prayer of the petitioners therein. In the result, the aggrieved 5th respondent in W.Ps.Nos. 8546 to 8548/1988, M/s. Revajeethu Builders and Developers (hereinafter referred to as Revajeethu for short) has preferred Writ Appeals Nos. 2071 to 2074/1989 arising out of the said Writ Petitions as well as W.P.No. 15377/1988. Writ Appeals Nos. 2059 to 2062 of 1989 are preferred by the 4th respondent in W.Ps.8546 to 8548/1988, viz., M/s Narayanaswamy and Sons. Writ Appeals Nos. 2083 to 2085/1989 are preferred by the Writ Petitioner in W.Ps.Nos. 8546 to 8548/1988 to the extent of one of his prayers or relief prayed for by him being refused. Similarly, Writ Appeal No. 1928/1989 is preferred by the petitioners in W.P.No. 15377/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : II(2002)DMC79; ILR2002KAR1831; 2004(3)KarLJ75
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.A Full Bench of this Court not agreeing with the view taken by an earlier Full Bench decision in the case of Jayakumar v. Smt. Harriet Nirmala and observing that 'there are number of reference petitions pending in this Court which shall now have to await the decision of the larger Bench', has referred this matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench vide its order dated 15-12-2000.2. As per the direction of the Chief Justice vide order dated 8-3-2002, the matter has been placed before this larger Bench of five Judges with advance notice on 15-3-2002. The points referred for consideration, are:(i) Whether a reference to High Court for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage, under Sections 17 and 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869, is necessary where such decree is granted by a Family Court, under the Family Courts Act, 1984?(ii) Whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court under Section 19 of the Fami...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005ACJ635; ILR2004KAR2014; 2004(5)KarLJ479
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. These Appeals and accompanying Revision have been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court to consider the question as to whether the driver holding licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle can be said to be holding an effective licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle.2. The fact matrix leading to reference lies in a narrow compass. The Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum, (hereinafter called as the 'Tribunal') by its common judgment and separate awards in M.V.C. No. 250/1992, M.V.C. No. 1404/1991, M.V.C. No. 1736/ 1991 and M.V.C. No. 1405/1992, dated 01.01.1999 held that in a motor accident that occurred on 26.08.1991 due to rash or negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. KA. 18-364, the KSRTC., Bus bearing No. MEF. 3499 was damaged and the claimants being passengers in the Bus were injured and hence, were entitled to compensation. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the National Insurance Company (hereinafter calle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR3539; 2002(4)KarLJ309
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. Petitioner had joined the services of Karnataka Land Army Corporation ('Corporation' for short), as Assistant Task Force Commander some time in the year 1972. During the year 1983, he was promoted as Task Force Commander.2. Petitioner while working as Task Force Commander at Sirsi, by an official memorandum bearing No. EST.CR. 200/74-75, dated 11-11-1983 (Annexure-A), he was kept under suspension pending departmental enquiry for dereliction of duties and negligence of executive work on his part. Further, by the very same order, one Sri L.C. Srinivasan, Deputy Director (Accounts), Headquarters, Karnataka Land Army Corporation, Bangalore, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry and to submit his report within two months. The aforesaid order came to be modified by a subsequent official memorandum in No. EST.CR. 200/74-75, dated 4-1-1984 and in place of Sri L.C. Srinivasan, Deputy Director (Accounts) Headquarters, Bangalore, one Sri K.C. Rangas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1691
Mohan, C.J. 1. The short facts leading to the appeal are as follows:The appellant was working as Assistant Public Prosecutor. Consequent to his appointment as such on 23-9-1969, he was posted to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Manvi during the year 1975. On 11-12-1975 a trap case was laid. When the appellant was sitting in the Bar Association of Manvi, one person by name Narasappa came at 12-20 p.m. and paid money for the proper conduct of his father's case. At the time when the money was received by the appellant, the Anti-Corruption Officers caught the appellant and seized the currency notes. Those currency notes were subjected to phenolphthalein test, Panchanamas were drawn and the statement of the appellant was taken. As a result, it was concluded that the said Narasappa had approached the appellant and the appellant had taken Narasappa to the Bar Association of the Manvi Court where the appellant demanded Rs. 50/- for the conduct of the case effectively. The of...
Tag this Judgment!