Karnataka Court May 1987 Judgments
Keshava Murthy Vs. Veeraiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2285
ORDERNavadgi, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the. Code' for short). H. L. Keshava Murthy, petitioner No. 1 and P. Lankesh, petitioner No. 2 have prayed in this petition to quash the proceedings initiated against them by the Metropolitan Magistrate, IV Court' Bangalore in C.C. No. 758 of 1985 on his file on the grounds stated in the petition.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and learned High Court Government Pleader for the Slate. I have perused the record of the proceedings.3. The facts material and relevant for the present purpose are these :H. Veeraiah, the respondent lodged a written complaint against the petitioners before the Magistrate on 21-2-1985 alleging that each of the petitioners had committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.4. It appears from the record that on the same day, that is, on 21-2-1985 the sworn statement of the respondent was recorded by the Magistrate and the...
Tag this Judgment!Shivappa Fakirappa Shetsanadi Vs. Kannappa Mallappa Shetsanadi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3155
K. A. Swami, J.This appeal by defendants 1 and 4 is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Haveri, in O.S.No.34/1971 on 6-8-1976.2.1. The aforesaid suit was filed by respondent No. 1 for a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the suit land bearing Sy.No. 112, measuring 27 acres 14 guntas situated at Devagiri Village, Haveri Taluk District: Dharwad and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The trial Court has decreed the suit.2.2. The parties in this Judgment will be referred to with reference to their position in the Trial Court.3. Having regard to the contentions urged on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is :'Whether the Trial Court is justified in Jaw in holding that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the suit land ?'4.1. It is not in dispute that the suit land is Shet Sanadi Inam - otherwise known as Walikarki or Talwarki inam This is one of the inferior village offic...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Janardhan Mahale Vs. Ramdas Keshav Kamath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2617
Kulkarni, J.1. This is an appeal by the Judgment Debtor against the order dated 4th April 1978 passed by the Civil Judge, Uttara Hanmada, Karwar, in Miscellaneous Case No. 9 of 1972 dismissing the same.2. The decree-holder had filed a Suit in O.S. 177/1942 OH the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karwar. A preliminary decree was passed in the said Suit on 24-10-1944. Final decree was passed on 20th of April 1951. There was an Appeal in C.A. No. 142/1951. Thereafter the matter was taken to the High Court. It appears from the Execution petition, that there was a compromise decree in R.S.A. No. 303/1953 and it is this compromise decree that is being executed now. The decree-holder sued out the present execution in Execution Case No. 1/1969 and the cause notice was issued under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC.3. The judgment-debtor, as can be seen from the order-sheet, raised various contentions. On 18-9-1969 an order was passed by the Executing Court to the following effect :'Shri V. G. Hegd...
Tag this Judgment!Mithravrinda Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-15-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1923
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The Writ Petition was listed for orders in the morning. But was taken up for hearing with the consent of the Counsel for both sides after 2.30 P.M. The learned Government Pleader produced the records for perusal.This Writ Petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore (as the Appellate Authority under the Karnataka Rent Control Act) whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner-landlady for stay of the allotment order made in favour of 3rd respondent, during the pendency of the appeal.2. On the basis of the alleged vacancy report, the Rent Controller notified the premises in question as vacant. The petitioner contended that the premises was not vacant and that she was residing in the house. The Rent Controller relied on the report of the Revenue Inspector to assume that the premises was vacant, consequent on the vacating of premises by the tenant Srikanth. The Rent Controller also states that he held...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Kundgol and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)KarLJ653; (1988)ILLJ379Kant
ORDER1. All these petitions are connected as the reliefs prayed for are common. In all these petitions, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs : (a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the select list Annexure-G) in so far as it relates to the selection of respondents 14 to 167, as the selection of the said respondents is illegal, untenable and cannot be sustained, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 13 to continue the petitioners as Mandal Panchayat Secretaries in the respective Mandal Panchayats or in any other Mandal Panchayat in their respective Districts where the petitioners have been working with all the consequential benefits which they are entitled to.' 2. (1) Petitioners are Secretaries of the Village Panchayats established and constituted under the provisions of the K...
Tag this Judgment!Keshava Rao Vs. Rama Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-05-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2660
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Though this Civil Revision Petition is posted for orders having regard to the fact that it can be disposed of on a short point, by consent of parties, it is taken up for final disposal.2. This Revision Petition is preferred under Section 121A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 28-3-1987 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority) in No. LRA 1278/86 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner as not maintainable.3. That was an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 27-11-1986, passed by the Land Tribunal, Hosakote (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for an order of temporary injunction under Section 48C of the Act.4. In this Petition it is not in dispute that the order dated 27-11-1986 is signed by the Chairman alone. The Appellate Au...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›