Karnataka Court June 1989 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.
Manval Luis Desouza Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1989
Reported in: II(1990)ACC418; 1991ACJ479; 1989(3)KarLJ302
A.K. Laxmeshwar, J.1. The above criminal revision petition is directed against the order passed by the J.M.F.C, Bhatkal, in C.C. No. 546 of 1983 dated 30.9.1985 convicting the accused and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and order dated 7.3.1988 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Karwar, U.K. District in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1985 confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhatkal.2. The facts of the case in brief are:That the petitioner was an accused who was the driver of a bus bearing No. MEF 9723 belonging to the M.S.R.T.C. and had driven the said bus rashly and negligently in Bhatkal bus stand while taking the bus in reverse, with the result a hamal by name Nagappa Kulla Naik was caught in between a pole and the back of the bus and died subsequently. Therefore the police of Bhatkal charge-sheeted the driver before the J.M.F.C, Bhatkal for an offence under 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.3. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case, after app...
Manchegowda Vs. Zilla Parishad, Bangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant28
ORDER1. Petitioner claims to be owner of Survey No. 16/12 situate in Deshavara. village. He says, beside his land there is kharab which is in his possession and enjoyment. He is aggrieved by the resolution passedby the Bangalore Rural District Zilla Parishad the contents of which is communicated by the letter of the Chief Secretary of the Zilla Parishad addressed to the Secretary, Dashavara Mandal Panchayat. The letter is at Annexure A and it is dated 5-6-1989. The contents indicate that the resolution is passed to auction the usufructs of Gundu thope by public auction and if there is any encroachment or encroachments within the boundaries of the gundu thope, steps may be taken to evict occupants or vacate such encroachment. Pursuant to that communication of the Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad, Bangalore Rural District, the Secretary of Dashavara Mandal Panchayat, has by its communication dated 17-6-1989 directed the petitioner not to trespass into the land of the mandal panchayat. It ...
Equipment Sales Corporation Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1989
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC145; 1989(24)LC767(Karnataka); 1989(43)ELT256(Kar); 1989(2)KarLJ242
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J1. In Writ Petition Nos. 3181 and 3101/89 the petitions are by the same petitioner. Writ Petition No. 3102/89 is filed by a different petitioner. 2. The contentions urged in these Writ Petitions are similar and are therefore disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners imported consignments consisting of Urine Collecting sacks. When they arrived at the Inland Container Depot, Bangalore a claim was made by the petitioners for exemption from payment of import duty under Customs Act under Notifications No. 208/81 dated 22-9-1981. 4. The Assistant Collector made an order which is impugned in Writ Petition No. 3181/89 dated 16-4-1985, ordering confiscation of goods and also levied redemption fine. On further appeal by the petitioner before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) the matter was remanded by its order dated 26-12-1985 and a de novo order made on 27-3-1987 by the Collector of Customs, Bangalore. The Collector ordered c...
K.V. Venkatesh Vs. Taluka Executive Magistrate, Magadi Taluk, Magadi a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant86; ILR1989KAR3225; 1989(2)KarLJ81
ORDER1. Smt. T. N. Majuladevi, learned High Court Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for the respondents.2. By consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.3. This is another dismal story of inordinate delay and non-disposal despite a direction from this Court issued in exercise of power conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Unfortunately, since ho time limit was specified in the direction issued, respondent 1 was not deterred by the consequences of a blatant defiance of the Court's order which would have landed him in contempt proceedings. This is one of those instances which justify the interference of the Court in its unenviable role of a senior partner in public administration. The delay as well as administrative lethargy of respondent I call for necessary action by the authorities who are supposed to supervise the functioning of respondent 1.4. On 7-3-1985, this Court allowed Writ Petition No. 22688 of 19...
Veeranna Vs. Sumitrabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-1989
Reported in: 1991CriLJ774; I(1990)DMC49; 1989(3)KarLJ341
ORDER1. The above Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 4-7-1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Criminal Revision Petition No. 44/87 allowing the same by setting aside the order dated 19-3-87 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Chittapur in C.C. No. 78/1980. 2. The facts of the case in brief are : The petitioner is the husband of the respondent-wife. This is a revision by the husband. Respondent-wife filed a petition u/S. 125 Cr.P.C. in C.C. No. 78/1980 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Chittapur claiming the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. The respondent alleged that she is the wife of the petitioner-husband, her marriage with the petitioner was solemnised when she was aged about 9 years, and she was suffering from mental disease, therefore, she was taken to her parents to Ravoor village. She was treated for a period of 6 to 7 years. Thereafter she was recovered. After recovery, the parents of the respondent requested her h...
T. Ramachandra Rao Vs. Divisional Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR778; 1989(3)KarLJ318
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner has presented this petition questioning the legality of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Gulbarga, under Sub-section (2) of Section 182 of the Karnataka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short) as also the order of the Civil Judge, Gulbarga, dismissing the appeal presented by the petitioner under Section 183 of the Act.2. The facts of the case are these: During the period commencing from 26th November 1972 to the 10th April 1974 the petitioner was working as a Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Development Board, Afzalpur, Gulbarga district. He was a Block Development Officer in the service of the State Government, who had been deputed and appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Development Board. He was re-transferred as Block Development Officer. He retired from service from 1-7-1977. On 28th November 1978 a notice was Issued to the petitioner under Section 182(2) of the Act calling upon him...
M.R. Suryanarayana Murthy Vs. University of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR688; 1989(3)KarLJ4
ORDERRama Jols, J.1. The petitioner who is a Lecturer in Commerce in the service of Mysore University has presented this petition praying inter alia for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the University to treat the period from 25-9-1973 to 31-3-1978 during which he had gone to Birmingham University in U.K. for higher studies, as leave with salary and pay all the arrears of salary and also for other reliefs.2. The facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner are as these: The petitioner was a Lecturer in Commerce in the service of the Mysore University. The Government of India evolved a Scheme entitled 'The Award of National Scholarship for Studies Abroad.' The Government of India selected him for the award of Scholarship after his name was sponsored by the Mysore University. After the Scholarship was awarded, the petitioner went to U.K. and joined the Birmingham University. During the stay at Birmingham he made a grievance to the effect that the salary and allowances to which...
Basavanthappa Dasharathappa Basthi Vs. Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR889
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Though the order of the Land Tribunal is of the year 1981, the same is challenged in the year 1987. The petitioners have asserted in the Writ Petition that they were not given proper opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal and the statement of the first petitioner was wrongly recorded by the Land Tribunal.2. According to the order of the Land Tribunal, the petitioners were not the tenants, but took the land on mortgage 3. There is no dispute that the owners of the land have not filed any objections as contemplated in Section 48-A(4) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioners have filed their Form No. 7 application in the year 1974. Section 48A(3) provides:'(3) The form of the application, the form of the notices, the manner of publishing or serving the notices and all other matters connected there with shall be such as may be prescribed. The Tribunal may for valid and sufficient reasons permit the tenant to amend the application.'Section 48...
D. Shakuntala Vs. D.P. Sharma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2215; 1989(2)KarLJ172
Hiremath, J. 1. The respondent D.P. Sharma is the owner of a building named 'Sunitha Bhavan' on Tippu Sultan Palace Road, at Bangalore. On 18-11-1982, he leased it out to the appellant Smt. D. Shakuntala for running a hotel-restaurant under a lease deed on a monthly rent, of Rs. 4,500/- for a period of 5 years. The appellant appears to have added some amenities like kitchen on the first-floor and a hotel called 'Hotel Kamadenu' was being run in the said premises by a partnership firm which appears to have later come into existence between the said D. Shakuntala and one A.M. Ahuja. It appears, in 1988 there was no smooth sailing for this hotel. There was labour, unrest and the hotel was being run under loss. The partnership even thought of closing it down. It appears, the employees of the hotel were against the closing down of the establishment and the partnership was not happy with them. A suit for injunction in O.S.No. 572/88 came to be filed before the City Civil Court against the em...
City Municipal Council, Mandya Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1989
Reported in: 1974(2)Kantlj390; 1974(2)KarLJ390; 1974(2)KLJ390
JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.(1) PETITIONER is the City Municipal Council, Mandya, which I shall call it as 'the Council'. Respondent 1 is the State of Mysore. The State by the order impugned in this writ petition, directed the Council to hand over possession of the Municipal sites Nos. 6 and 7 situate at Mandya town to respondent 3. It is the contention of the Council that the State Govt. have no authority to compel it to part with the possession of- the said sites. The validity of the contention requires to be determined on the following facts:(2) RESPONDENT 3 was originally the owner of 11 guntas of land in S. No. 1999 at Mandya Town. The Council wanted that land and so at its request, respondent 3 transferred the same by a deed of conveyance dt. 5-12-1964 for no consideration. Instead, it is said that it was greed that the council should grant a building site in favour of respondent 3. Accordingly by a Resolution dt. 9-2-1966 a site bearing No. 17 at Mandya Town was granted free of cost to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »