Karnataka Court September 1986 Judgments

Nanjanna Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3635; 1986(2)KarLJ463

ORDER1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 286/84 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate V Court, Bangalore City. The petitioner married the deceased Chandrakala in about 1982. On 23-2-1983 at about 9.30 p.m. she sustained burn injuries and three days later she died in the Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. On 25-2-1983 her statement was recorded by the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Jivan Bimanagar Police Station, Bangalore. On the basis of that, a case was registered under S. 307 I.P.C. against the petitioner and investigation was taken up. Later, the investigation was taken over by C.O.D. Bangalore. After completing the investigation the C.O.D. police have filed a charge-sheet in the court below against the petitioner for offences punishable under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') only as they found after investigation that Chandrakala had committed suicide. 2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, on the police report, and ...

Mohammed Ilyas Vs. Regional Transport Officer and Registering Authorit ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1987Kant137; 1987(1)KarLJ123

ORDER1. Petitioner is the owner of motor vehicle bearing Registration Mark CAM 7799. It is a heavy passenger vehicle registered within the jurisdiction of the first respondent-Regional Transport Officer and Registering Authority, Bangalore Central, Bangalore.2. Petitioner was issued with a show cause notice under sub-sec. l (b) of S. 33 of the Motor Vehicles Act, calling upon him to explain why his registration should not be suspended for having used his vehicle as stage carriage when it was only covered with a special permit for carrying a group of passengers on an express or implied contract as evidenced by the Check Report of the Assistant Engineer, (Motor Vehicles), State Transport Authority, Chepauk, at Madras. Having regard to the previous offences of the same kind committed by the petitioner, the first respondent registering authority suspended the registration for a period of 15days On appeal, the findings were confirmed but the period of suspension was reduced to 10 days by th...

Rajasekhar Vs. Gulbarga University

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR490

ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Petitioner was provisionally admitted to M.Sc., Course in seats reserved in favour of children of 'freedom fighter'. Later on University, not being satisfied with material placed on record that he is a son of freedom fighter, informed, through Annexure-C, that his case will not fall within the purview of Section 6 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and has accordingly returned his application.2. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, University, may, by a special or general directions of State Government, reserve seats for admission of students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, socially and educationally backward classes, nominees of Central Government, defence personnel, ex-servicemen and their children or wards and children of freedom fighters. Likewise, University may grant exemption from payment of fees or boarding, lodging or other charges or from all fees and charges or provide ...

Subashchandra Sethia Vs. Registrar, Court of City Civil Judge

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR164

ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. Petitioner is seeking a Writ in the nature of certiorari to quash all the orders passed in Insolvency Case No. 14/1982 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH. No. IX).2. I have heard Mr. Paras Jain regarding the maintainability of this Writ Petition. Mr. Jain conceded that the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, is a Court subordinate to High Court, though a revision petition would lie under Section 115 C.P.C.; nevertheless he maintained that a Writ Petition would be maintainable and is not barred.3. Respondent No. 2 has filed an application under Section 6 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 inter alia praying that the petitioner be adjudicated as an insolvent and the property of the petitioner may be taken in Court custody. Those proceedings are pending in the Court-below and Mr. Jain submitted that it is at the stage of recording of evidence. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for an interim order staying all further proceedings. The consistent vi...

Deena Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

ORDERDesai, J.1. The petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 513/83 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Vth Court, Bangalore, One Sri. B.N. Prabhakar Rao, a police constable No. 2898 attached to Ulsoor police station who is the neighbour of the accused filed a complaint in the Ulsoor police station on 17-8-79 alleging that on that day at 1.55 p.m. while he was, proceeding to bis house, the accused wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him with chappals and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 341 and 355 IPC. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court-below against the accused on 14-3-1983 ie., after more than 3 1/2 years from the date of offence.2. According to Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') the charge-sheet ought to have been filed within three years from the date of offence as the offence under Section 355 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for two years or ...

Jayarama Vs. Ajjanna

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3583

ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the decree-holder against the order dated 9-9-1985 passed by the Munsiff, Chitradurga, in Execution Case No. 79 of 1985 and Miscellaneous Case No. 67 of 1981, ordering redelivery of the property to the Judgment-debtor-respondent.2. The decree-holder filed H.R.C. Case 12 of 1977 against the Judgment-debtor under Section 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act in the Court of the Munsiff, Chitradurga. In the said eviction case, the decree-holder-landlord filed an application under Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act alleging that the tenant had fallen in arrears of rent. Notwithstanding the order passed by the Court under Section 29 of the Rent Control Act, the tenant did not deposit the rental arrears. The show cause notice contemplated by Section 29 was issued to the Judgment-debtor. He failed to show the cause. Hence, the order under Section 29(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, directing the judgment debtor tenant to put the ...

Dastagir HussaIn Nadaf Vs. Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3547

ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by Judgmeat-debtor-1 against the order dated 20-7-1984 passed by the Munsiff, Ankola, in Execution Case No. 17/1981 ordering Judgment-debtors-1 to 3 to pay the decretal amount in three equal monthly instalments and on failure to pay the decretal amount as directed, Judgment-debtors-1 and 2 shall be kept in civil prison for 15 days.2. The learned Counsel Shri Ramachandra submitted that the Execution Petition had been signed and verified by the Counsel for the decree holder and that it was not signed and verified as required by Order 21 Rule 11(2) C.P.C. Order 21 Rule 11 (2) C.P.C. reads as :--'Save as otherwise provided by Sub-rule (1), every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant, or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars, etc., etc.'Therefore the Execution Pet...

Suresh K. Bhat Vs. University of Mangalore and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1987Kant158

ORDER1. Petitioner relying on sub-cl. (3) of Regulation 4 of Mangalore University Post Graduate Degree and Diploma (Selection for Admission) to M.B.A. Course has sought for issue of a writ in the mature of mandamus directing respondents to select and admit him to M.B.A. Course for the academic year 1986-87. 2. In support of the plea that he is physically handicapped he has produced Medical Certificate issued by Dr. M. K. Jayanandan. Civil Surgeon Grade-11 Government Hospital, Kasargod (AnnexureA). Syndicate of Mangalore University has not considered infirmity mentioned in Certificate as physical handicap. The decision as extracted in Statement of Objections reads thus: - '......Sri Suresh K. is not eligible to be considered under Physically Handicapped category as cleft palate is not a kind of handicap to be considered under that category ............' 3. Sri Naik, learned counsel for petitioner contended that University has made reservation of seats in favour of sportsmen and physical...

Suresh Vs. University of Mangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1987KAR486

ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Petitioner relying on Sub-clause (3) of Regulation 4 of Mangalore University Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma (Selection for Admission) to M.B.A. Course has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to select and admit him to M.B.A. Course for the academic year 1986-87.2. In support of the plea that he is physically handicapped he has produced Medical Certificate issued by Dr. M.K. Jayanandan, Civil Surgeon Grade-II, Government Hospital, Kasargod (Annexure-A) Syndicate of Mangalore University has not considered infirmity mentioned in Certificate as physical handicap.The decision as extracted in Statement of Objections reads thus :-'...... Sri Suresh K. is not eligible to be considered under Physically Handicapped category as cleft palate is not a kind of handicap to be considered under that category.......'3. Sri Naik, learned Counsel for petitioner contended that University has made reservation of seats in favour of sportsman...

State of Karnataka Vs. Nageshwara Rao

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR4171

ORDERPatil, J.1. Heard. Perused the judgment. The IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore, having acquitted the accused-respondents of the charge of the offence under Section 7 R/w 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and Clause-3 of the Karnataka Pulses Dealers Licensing Order, 1977, the State has come up with this appeal.2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused firstly on the ground that the evidence is not satisfactory and secondly on the ground the search conducted by the police was illegal. The Learned Magistrate has observed that police has no such powers of search. In reaching that conclusion he has referred to Rule 17(1) of the Order, whereunder the Government has authorized certain authorities to make such search for securing compliance of the order. The evidence given by PWs-1 to 4 is highly discrepant in relation to the details of the seizure effected. Besides, neither any case itself was registered before making search nor the permission of...