Karnataka Court August 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kariyappa Gadageppa Amaljari Vs. Additional Special Land Acquistion Of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3040; 1988(2)KarLJ369
ORDERBopanna, J.1. The short point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner - landlord could rely on the provisions of Section 44(2)(b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (in short, 'the K.L.R. Act') for claiming the relief sought for in this petition. The relief claimed is that the amounts paid by the Land Acquisition Officer to respondent-4 to 6 as compensation due to them under the Land Acquisition Act is violative of the provisions of Section 44(2)(b) of the K.L.R. Act and therefore, the respondent-4 to 6 should be directed to pay back the amounts to the State Government till the dispute regarding the tenancy rights in the land in question is finally resolved by the Appellate Authority before whom the matter is pending adjudication.2. The brief facts in this Writ Petition may be noticed in order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. These petitioners, who were petitioners-1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 2785/1981 h...
Boramma Vs. Rent and Accomodation Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3029
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. In this Revision Petition the order passed by the Rent Controller, Mysore, (Annexure-A) and the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore (Annexure-B) have been challenged.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the mere allegation of existence of vacancy and without verification in accordance with law after due issue of notice as contemplated and without going through the due process of law in evicting the alleged unauthorised occupant in one of the tenaments, the Rent Controller has proceeded to notify the alleged vacancy and allotted the premises to the 3rd respondent. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the Rent Controller is stated to have conducted a spot inspection which is not within the knowledge of the petitioner and that the petitioner was not notified of any proposed spot inspection.3. In these circumstances, the question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the impugned order passed ...
Kariyappa Vs. Haladappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant163; ILR1988KAR3269
ORDER1. This Civil Revision Petition is by the decree-holders, whose execution case was rejected by the Executing, Court. On 26-2-1988,after hearing the. learned Counsel for the petitioner, I had allowed the petition and directed the Executing Court to proceed with the execution. On the said date, even though the respondent had been served with the notice of the C.R.P. he was not present and he was not represented by any Counsel. Thereafter , I.As . I to III were filed by the respondent, seeking the said order to be recalled and other incidental reliefs. The reason for his absence and non-representation at the time of the said disposal of the C.R.P. is fully explained by the respondent. Sri H. G. Ramesh, the learned Counsel for the decreeholder, fairly did not oppose the said I.As. Consequently, my order dated 26-2-1988 is recalled. The learned Counsel for both parties were ready for arguments on merits of the C.R.P. and they were fully heard.2. A few facts are necessary to be stated. ...
Chairman, Nimhans Vs. G.N. Tumkur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2747; 1988(3)KarLJ9
Bopanna, J1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6688 of 1980 quashing the order of compulsory retirement from service of the respondent herein on the ground that he had committed gross misconduct within the meaning of the relevant C.C.A. Rules.2. The learned single Judge took the view that the disciplinary authority did not apply its mind to the gravity of misconduct said to have been proved against the respondent and accordingly relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in SHANKAR DASS v. UNION OF INDIA, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed was not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and that there was no application of mind to that aspect of the case. Therefore, he quashed the impugned orders reserving liberty to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the inquiry from the stage at which the infirmity had occurred. He further ma...
Abdul Salam Vs. Ghouse Bi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3178; 1989(1)KarLJ16
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. Premises No. 11, Kuppuswami Naidu Street, Civil Station, Bangalore, belonged to Mehboob Khan, who leased the same to petitioner - R. Abdul Salam; Mehboob Khan died in November 1975. He is survived by his wife Ghouse Bi, six sons and three daughters.2. On 26-5-1980, Ghouse Bi filed the eviction petition under Clauses (a)(b) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, describing herself, as co-owner of the premises. Subsequently the others namely, sons and daughters were also impleaded as petitioners After contest, the petition is allowed on 7-2-1984, and eviction order is passed, which is the subject matter of this civil revision petition.3. The tenant after filing the civil revision petition has obtained stay order, enabling him to continue in the premises. In this Court, petitioner-tenant has filed an application on 30th January 1985 stating Noorullah Khan son of Mehboob Khan one of the sharers in the landlords family has sold his undivided rig...
Yellappa Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1032; 1988(3)KarLJ253
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 6-7-1987 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum Sub-Division in Case No. RTS.AP.25-86 Annexure-A. He has also sought for issue of a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Revenue Authorities to make necessary changes in the record of rights by mutating the petitioner's name and to issue such other directions as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.2. The facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the contentions raised In this petition are as follows:(a) The land In question is an agricultural land bearing S. No. 117 measuring 28 guntas situate in Jabapur Village, Hukeri Taluk. It was assigned to the village office. The third respondent was a holder of the village office. On the abolition of the village office under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the K.V.O. Act)...
State of Karnataka Vs. Ahmed and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant115; ILR1988KAR2624; 1989(1)KarLJ76
Desai, J.1. In Cr.A. NO. 30/83 the following point, namely, whether the report of the Public Analyst is admissible as substantive evidence to prove the fact that the specimen seal tallied with the seals affixed on the sample, has been referred to the Full Bench. In Food Inspector v. V. V. Gangadharan, (1983) 2 Kant LJ 142 : (1983) Cri LJ 1732) it is held that the report of the Public Analyst is substantive evidence in the case and the recital in the certificate that the specimen seal tallied with the seals affixed on the bottles is admissible in proof of the fact. In State of Karnataka v. Dolphy Albuquerque, (1983) 2 Kant LJ 481: (1984 Cri LJ NOC 148) it is held that it is obligatory for the prosecution to prove that the seal on the container and the outer cover of the sample sent to the Analyst were compared with the specimen sent separately and that the condition of the seals thereon was noted and what is stated in the report of the Analyst about the comparison of the seals cannot be...
M. Abdul Zaheer Vs. the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant171; ILR1989KAR1316
ORDER1. In this petition, the petitioner has questioned the order passed by the respondent in classifying the vehicle bearing Registration No. TNR 3539 as Omni Bus without any application from. the petitioner.2. The short point for consideration is, whether under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is permissible for the respondent to reclassify the vehicle of the petitioner as an Omni Bus on his own volition.3. The petitioner purchased the vehicle bearing Registration Number TNR. 3539 which was registered with the Registering Authority, Madhurai as a Stage Carriage Vehicle. Later on the vehicle was brought within the jurisdiction of the respondent into the State of Karnataka. At the time of crediting the tax in respect of the said vehicle, the respondent suo motu (without application from the petitioner) proceeded to re-classify the vehicle as Omni Bus with effect from 136-1988 on the ground that the vehicle is not covered by any permit and assessed tax on that basis.4. Being...
Thaniya Naika Vs. Babu Mukhari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR716
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. All these petitions are disposed, of by the following common order. They involve a common question of law and the facts may be taken as more or less common to all the petitions with reference to the question of law that falls to be answered though elections held relate to different constituencies and the challenges made by the concerned respondents were in different election petitions but presented to the same Munsiff. All the elections with which we are concerned were held for the same Mandal but for different constituencies in that Mandal. In all the petitions except one the petitioners are candidates for seat reserved for women and returned unopposed. In one petition the election is for the general seat. The Mandal in question is Shirva Mandal in Udupi Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. Another fact which is common to all the petitions is that the candidates whose nomination papers were rejected at the time of scrutiny were the persons who presented, th...
Mariyappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2930
ORDERPatil, J.1. On a private complaint filed by respondent-2 against the petitioners alleging commission of the offence of murder punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC, the J.M.F.C., Yelburga, having issued process against the petitioners, they have approached this Court invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings so instituted against them.2. In sum and substance, the allegations made in the complaint are: The deceased Shivawwa alias Mallamma was given in marriage to the 1st petitioner Mariappa of Yeddoni village and she was being ill-treated by the petitioners and they were forcing her to bring money, gold and other ornaments from her parent's house and on the intervention of some persons although he had sent her to her husband's house, advising her to live there and bring good name to the family, but on the very day on which he had sent, he learnt later on that the deceased had died. When he went back to Yeddoni, the dead body wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »