Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR3210
K. Ramachandriah, J.1. This criminal petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), involves for consideration the following point of law : 'Whether a complainant whose revision petition filed under section 397 of the Code before the Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate dismissing his complaint is also dismissed by the Sessions Judge cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of the Code for setting aside the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge ?' 2. The said point arises in the way : (a) The petitioner as proprietor of Raja Silk House (Pvt.) Ltd., Basavaraja Market, Bangalore, filed a private complaint against the respondents in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, under section 190 read with section 200 of the Code alleging that the respondents had committed offences punishable under sections 477A, 420 and 409, Indian Penal Code. Respondents Nos. 1 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR3199; 1989(3)KarLJ85
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. This is defendants' Revision Petition against the order of the trial Court, directing a payment ofRs. 19,412/- as Court fee on the amount claimed by the defendants as 'set off.'2. According to the plaint, defendants approached the plaintiff for temporary financial assistance and thus borrowed various sums on different dates; the total borrowings by the defendants was Rs. 1,40,000/- and the rate of interest allegedly agreed to be paid by the defendants was 18% per annum. After deducting some of the payments made by the defendants, the plaintiff sued for an amount of Rs. 1,94,112/- as detailed in the plaint.3. The defendants filed the written statement, with an opening sentence as 'the defendants above named file the following written statement, claim set-off and prefer the counter claim against the plaintiff:- The substance of the case pleaded by the defendants was, that, the plaintiff approached them to execute and cause to be executed certain works for he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1990CriLJ234; ILR1989KAR3409; 1989(3)KarLJ595
ORDER1. Y. Dass, son of Yasu - petitioner No. 1. and G. Ananda Raj, son of Gangaiah - petitioner No. 2 sent the petition through the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, to the Hon'ble Chief Justice with a prayer to admit the petition as writ petition and direct the State Government to release them from the prison contending that they were entitled to premature release. The petition was restored as a Writ Petition and Rule Nisei was issued to the respondent (State) by the Order dated 13-4-1989. The return is filed by the respondent in the form of an affidavit of the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore. 2. The record is perused. The learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S. S. Koti, the learned His Court Government Pleader for the respondent, are heard. 3. The facts relevant to dispose of the writ petition are these : Y. Dass (petitioner No. 1) and G. Ananda Raj (petitioner No. 2) were accused No. 10 and accused No. 5 respectively in Sessions Case No. 16/7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR535; 1989(3)KarLJ466
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This petition is directed against the proceedings relating to the acquisition of 9746 sq. metres of land in premises Nos. 6 and 7, Cubbon Road, Civil Station, Bangalore.2. The following are the essential facts of the case:Premises Nos. 6 and 7, Cubbon Road, Civil Station, Bangalore, belongs to a Wakf called 'Mohammed Moosa Sait Wakf'. It is stated that most of the beneficiaries of the Wakf are widows and orphans and persons in financial difficulties and who depend on the income of the Wakf. The said premises had been leased to one A.B.V. Gowda who has since deceased survived by his widow Yashoda Gowda, a daughter and a minor son. Permission for the said lease was granted by this Court in C.R.P. No. 713/1974 dated 25-7-1974. 3. The Notice dated 19-1-1987 was issued by respondent No. 1 purported to be under Section 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act 30 of 1952) to the petitioner in respect of 9746 sq. metres of land refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR1241; 1990(3)KarLJ535
ORDERShyamasundar, J. 1. The petitioner sought and obtained grant of a building site which is said to be next to his own. The grant made by the Assistant Commissioner presumably under Section 18(2) of the Land Grant Rules which enjoined granting a site to the adjacent owner if the site itself cannot be disposed off independently, if he so desired and at such value as the Deputy Commissioner may determine. Admittedly, the said site was granted to the petitioner on the foregoing ground.2. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner, it appears moved by somebody else, passed an order of stay of the grant and clamped it despite an application made by the petitioner to vacate the same. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner without any success and thereafter the Assistant Commissioner who had granted the site to the petitioner went on to cancel the grant under Annexure-F. In the preamble to Annexure-F, a reference to the circumstances under which the Assistant Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR3292; 1989(2)KarLJ475
Rama Jois, Ag. C.J. 1. These appeals are presented by the Bangalore University, against the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the orders passed against respondents-1 to 25 by which the performance of each of them in the February-March, 1989 B.E. Degree Examination was cancelled.2. The facts of the case in brief are these: Or. 13-3-1989 students of B.M.S. Engineering College, Bangalore, were answering the question papers on the subject called Hydrology and Irrigation, in Room No. 11 of the College. The examination commenced from 2.00 ' P.M. It appears, that when the examination was going on, a Vigilance Flying Squad appointed by the University to check the menace of mass malpractice, at all the examinations of the University, made a surprise entry into the aforesaid examination room at about 3.30 p.m. The Squad gave a report of the same date to the University Registrar (Evaluation), giving the names of the students who according to the Squad were found indulging in examination ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant273; I(1990)DMC41; 1989(2)KarLJ519
ORDER1. In this Civil Petition the wife has filed an application under Sec. 24, C.P.C. seeking the withdrawal of the case in M.C. No. 20/88 from the file of the principal Civil Judge, Bagalkot and to transfer of the same to principal Civil Judge, Dharwad or any other equivalent Court having the jurisdiction to try the case in Dharwad.2. The material facts are that the husband has filed a matrimonial case in M.C. No. 20/88 before the Court of the principal Civil Judge, Bagalkot for restitution of conjugal rights. The case is pending before the Court. The petitioner is not living in Bagalkot in the house of her husband. She is residing with her parents at Dharwad. The main reason for seeking a transfer is the danger to life which the petitioner is entertaining in her mind from her own husband. Several allegations have been made to make out a case that the husband is demanding dowry from the petitioner and on account of resistance from the petitioner the situation has become dangerous and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1989(3)KarLJ39; (1991)IILLJ477Kant
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order made under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The subject-matter in dispute is in relation to 33 employees. The petitioner-establishment is covered by the provisions of the Act with effect from January 1, 1975, when it voluntarily made an application to the respondent that the provisions of the Act be made applicable to it although it was covered by Section 16(1)(b) of the Act, and notification in that regard had also been issued under Section 1(4) of the Act. Subsequently, the petitioner sought for exemption under Section 17(1) of the Act in respect of certain class of employees. The respondent, by his letter dated November 12/19, 1975, stated that such an exemption cannot be granted in respect of a class of employees under Section 17 of the Act and that they were to make their contributions at the rate of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant214; 1989(3)KarLJ434
ORDER1. Did the Bangalore Development Authority ('the Authority') not have jurisdiction under clause (a) of sub-section(1) of S. 15 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('the Act'), to prepare, frame or draw up a 'development scheme' generally called as 'improvement scheme' respecting an adjacent area of the 'Bangalore Metropolitan Area', is the main point raised for consideration and decision in these writ petitions.2. As to how and why the said point is raised, warrant the making of a brief antecedent factual statement before referring to the material statutory provisions bearing on that point and considering and deciding upon it.An area of 1843 acres 6 guntas of land comprised in several Survey Numbers of Uttarahalli, Marasandra, Vaddarapalya, Doddakallasandra, Yelachenahally, Halage-vaderahally, Channasandra, Bikasipura, Vasanthapura and Konanakunte villages is an 'adjacent area' of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. In respect of that adjacent area, a development scheme call...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR610; 1990(3)KarLJ497
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and for permanent Injunction and alternatively for possession.2. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property measuring 0-10 guntas which forms part and parcel of the land bearing S.No. 483/2A which according to the plaintiff extends upto the bund lying in between the land bearing S.No. 483/2A - belonging to the plaintiff and S.No. 482/2 belonging to the defendant. Alternatively he has also pleaded adverse possession also.3. As far as title is concerned, in the light of the measurement made by the Surveyor, both the Courts below have held that the disputed land forms part of S.No. 482/2 and as such the defendant is the owner.4. Regarding adverse possession, both the Courts below have negatived the contention of the plaintiff. One of the reasons given by the lower Appellate Court is that it has been the case of the plaintiff that his land extended upto the bund in question and therefore the b...
Tag this Judgment!