Karnataka Court August 1986 Judgments
S.A. Chiniwar Vs. D.i.G. of Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR854; (1987)IILLJ322Kant
ORDER1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the following relief : 'Quash by the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction as the case may be, the order dated 11th September, 1981 of the Superintendent of Police, Bijapur (Annexure-F) discharging the petitioner from service, with a further direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith, with all consequential benefits;' 2. The contention of the petitioner is that, though the order of discharge is innocuously worded, it is really in the nature of penalty as it is actually passed on the basis of the alleged misconduct without holding an enquiry and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Police Constable in the Karnataka State Police Service in the unit of the Superintendent of Police, Bijapur, by the order dated 2nd July, 1980. Pursuant to that, he re...
Tag this Judgment!Panchakshari Vs. Chairman, Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2890; 1987(1)KarLJ12
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by respondent-2 against the order dated 9-7-1986 passed by the Appellate Authority, Hassan, in Appeal No. 11/86-87, granting the stay.2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that his client had filed a caveat before the Appellate Authority, Hassan, and that, as he was not heard before the grant of stay, the Stay was illegal, ineffective and void ab initio. According to him, Section 148-A of the C.P.C. relating the to the caveat applies to the proceedings in the Appellate Authority constituted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Section 148-A of C.P.C. reads as:'148-A. Right to lodge a caveat:(1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof.(2) Where a caveat has been lodged under Sub-section (1), the person ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesha Gowda Vs. P.L.D. Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3410
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. Petitioner is an agriculturist. Accepting certain incentives offered by the first respondent-the Primary Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., of Heggadadevanakote he purchased a tractor by obtaining a loan from the first respondent-Bank. The tractor met with an accident sometime after it was purchased. The result was that it was unfit for being used for cultivation purposes. Petitioner had no resources to carry out repairs to the tractor. It was only in the year 1981, he was able to put the tractor on the road. The tractor was got attached by the first respondent-Bank. He has alleged that before attachment, prescribed procedure was not followed by the Bank. Therefore, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, contending that Sections 32, 33, 80, 88, 99 and 101 of the Karnataka Co.-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are ultra vires the Constitution and therefore attachment of the tra...
Tag this Judgment!Yohana Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4016
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 19-6-1986 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, in No. 50/86-87, produced as Annexure-C. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred from Hinkal to Alagodu. The 5th respondent has been transferred from Duddagere to Hinkal. The petitioner was functioning as Village Accountant at Alagodu. He cams to be transferred on 13-9-1985 to Hinkal. Pursuant to the order of transfer, he handed over the charge of the office and repotted to duty at Hinkal; and thereafter the impugned order has been passed.2. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has misused his official position, as Special Officer to the Chief Minister, and has sent a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, as per Annexure-G dated 6-6-1986 informing him that the Chief Minister has directed that the 5th respondent be transferred to Hinkal. There are ...
Tag this Judgment!Kulusumbi Vs. Azeeza Begum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4027; 1986(2)KarLJ388
Nesargi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Bellary on 10-2-76 in O.S. No. 10/1966. The appellants are the defendants. The respondents are the plaintiffs.2. The undisputed facts are that one Osman Pasha died on 30-6-1960 in a motor-cycle accident. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff No. 1 was married to him on 22-7-1957 and respondent No. 2- plaintiff No. 2 is their daughter. Appellant No. 1-defendant No. 1 is the mother of Osman Pasha. Appellant No. 2 is his brother and appellant No. 3 is his sister.3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and possession of the suit schedule properties according to their shares demarcated in accordance with the provisions of Hanafi law.4. Various contentions were advanced in defence. The two main contentions were that a motor-cycle was driven by Osman Pasha and that a person who was on the pillion seat had caused the accident and made him to die and that plaintiff No. 1 has subsequently married that pe...
Tag this Judgment!Selson Vs. Board of Examining Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR493
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Decision of first respondent declining to accept admission of petitioner to second respondent-an Educational Institution, imparting D. Pharma Course (Annexure-E) is questioned in this Writ Petition.2. Facts which have lead to issue of this endorsement are :-Petitioner on completion of Higher Secondary Course Certificate, 'vocational education', conducted by Government of Tamil Nadu was admitted to second year D. Pharma Course at S.C.S. College of Pharmacy, Harappanahalli-second respondent, during academic year 1984-85. After some correspondence and discussion Board of Examining Authority informed that it is not possible to accept admission of petitioner and will not be allowed to appear for examination scheduled to be held in May 1985.3. Contention of petitioner is that he is eligible for admission to second year D. Pharma Course while first respondent justify denial of admission. Thus, question required to be considered is whether petitioner is eligible or i...
Tag this Judgment!Shamaiah Gowda Vs. Commissioner, City Municipal Council
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3943
Rama Jois, J.1. This case is an example to show as to how by inept handling of its case by a public authority it deprives itself of the relief to which it is entitled to in law for a long time, in this case, for over a decade.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follow: A site measuring 180 feet x 150 feet situate near Seenappa Shetty Circle, Nehru Road, within the vicinity of Shimoga City Municipal Council had been leased out in favour of the appellant more than quarter century before. The lease was initially for a period of five years and it was being extended from time to time in favour of the appellant without putting the same to auction after the expiry of each period of lease. Whatever that may be there is no dispute that the latest lease in favour of the appellant commenced from 22-1-1972 and was for a period of five years. It was due to expire on 22-1-1977. At that time the elected Council was not in existence and consequently an administrator had been appointed for exercis...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ravishankar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR847; (1987)IILLJ374Kant
ORDER1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs : '(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd Respondent to hold that the applications submitted by the petitioners are valid applications, and then call them for interview and select them on the basis of the merit and also issue them appointment orders if they are selected to posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Public Works and Irrigation Department of the Government of Karnataka; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding that non-consideration of the cases of the petitioners for interview and selection to the posts of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Public Works and Irrigation Department by the 2nd Respondent on the basis that they had not completed their B.E. Degree as on 31st July, 1985, is totally invalid, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Leelavathi G. Naik and ors. Vs. the Assistant Superintendent of Police ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant165; 1987(1)KarLJ152
ORDER1. Petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. MEX 4997. That vehicle is a motor car. Previously it was owned by her husband Ganapathi Naik, who is the second petitioner. During the ownership of the husband, the second petitioner, the vehicle was checked and found carrying passengers for hire and reward for which he did not have a permit. In the result, action was taken by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Puttur in accordance with S. 33(l)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The explanation of the petitioner was that he did not commit the offence; that only his wife and servant had travelled on the relevant day when the Sub-Inspector checked the same and the driver pleaded guilty before the Magistrate of the charge of driving the vehicle without a valid permit carrying passengers for hire and reward only to avoid complications. That explanation was rejected and the first respondent, the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Puttur, suspended the registration certifi...
Tag this Judgment!Vidyaranya nagar Petty Shopkeepers' Association and Ors. Vs. the Corpo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant159
ORDER1. This petition was first filed by Vidyaranya nagar Petty Shopkeepers' Association. On the office objection raised, the petition was confined to the second petitioner Smt. Chinnamma as ordered by this Court.2. Petitioner claims to have been a lessee of one of the petty shops leased to her by the first respondent Corporation of the City of Bangalore. It is alleged that she has been trading in the shop for nearly two decades; that some of the petty shopkeepers belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. On several representations made by their Association, the Corporation of the City of Bangalore assured it to assist the members of the association to construct the kiosks. Similarly, even prior to the assurance of the Corporation. the Minister for Urban Development, at the relevant time, had assured that the Corporation itself would construct the shops and lease it to the petitioners. That the lease of land was given to the petitioner and from time to time was extended is not i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »