Karnataka Court August 1991 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.
K.N. Eshwarappa Vs. Lachanaika
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR334; 1991(4)KarLJ138
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. Even though this Writ Petition is posted for orders, with the consent of both the Counsel the Writ Petition is disposed of finally.2. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has called in question the correctness and legality of the orders made by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-A dated 14-9-1992 and that of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-C dated 16-4-1991. He has sought for quashing the same on more than one ground. Sri C.M. Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner took me through the impugned orders Annexure-A and C and other documents produced and urged the following points:(1) The Assistant Commissioner-Competent Authority who held the enquiry under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short the Act) failed to record a specific finding as to whether Lachanaika - the first respondent-grantee was a member representing either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, that b...
M.V. Babu Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1697; 1991(4)KarLJ171
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. After going through the records on 5-8-1991, an order was passed confirming the order of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C, which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Raichur. Subsequently Sri Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioners appeared and requested that he may be given one more opportunity to argue the case.Hence, both the learned Counsel were heard. 2. Sri Udaya Holla contends that:(i) When there is an order of injunction in favour of a person in respect of the disputed property and a complaint is made against such a person under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it is not proper for the Criminal Court to proceed with enquiry and then to issue process. (ii) In the instant case, on the directions given to the police after receipt of complaint, police had submitted 'B' Report as required. As such the learned Magistrate should have dropped the proceedings. Instead of proceeding with the case, process was ordered to be issued. This defect ...
Seenappa Shetty Vs. Bhujanga Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3854; 1991(4)KarLJ716
ORDERR. Ramakrishna, J.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Smt. Suman Hegde has filed the above noted applications (i.e., I.A.III in Cr.R.P. No. 477/89 and I.A.III in Cr.R.P. No. 468/1989) on behalf of the respective petitioners praying that the Judgment dated 7-3-1991 passed in Cr.R.P. No. 477/1989 and Cr.R.P. No. 468/1989 passed by this Court may kindly be recalled and petitioners be permitted to urge their arguments on merits.2. Before considering the applications for recalling the earlier Judgment of this Court, it is necessary to make a brief advertence to the facts.3. in Cr.R.P. No. 477/1989, the petitioner was the 4th accused and in Cr.R.P. No. 468/1989, the petitioner was the 5th accused in C.C. No. 93/1989. The common respondent K. Bhujanga Shetty has flied a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (shortly called as 'the Code') against 9 accused persons in the Court of JMFC I Court, Hubli, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 540, 506...
Kuttappa Vs. Katrikolli Somaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3985; 1991(4)KarLJ270
ORDERKrishnan, J. 1. The Revision Petitioners are the persons who are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased defendant in O.S. No. 162 of 1975 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Virajpet. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff granting the prayer of the plaintiff to bring them on record as legal representatives, they have preferred this Revision Petition. 2. To understand the circumstances under which the present Revision Petition has been filed, only a few facts need be stated:- The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 162 of 1975 against one Kambiranda A. Muthanna for declaration of his title to Sy. No. 113/1 and delivery of possession of 2 acres 6 guntas of land in the said survey number. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of Commissioner and that having been allowed, the defendant challenged the same before this Court in C.R.P. No. 620 of 1979. The defendant (revision petitioner in the said case) died on 30-11-1983 a...
B.V. Naik Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3441; 1992(4)KarLJ24
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under S. 482, Cr.P.C. to expunge the remarks dated 21-12-1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in S.C. No. 14 of 1986 and directing the higher-ups of the petitioner to hold an enquiry into the alleged lapses on the part of the petitioner as Investigating Officer. 2. In have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case. 3. In the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim, : [1964]2SCR363 it has been held as follows (at page 553) : 'If there is one principles of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this : the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by any body, even by the Court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions Judges and Magistrate must be guid...
Abdul Rawoof and Others Vs. the Deputy Conservator of Forests
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1218; ILR1991KAR3226; 1992(1)KarLJ213
ORDER1. Since the facts are common and the issue involved in these two petitions are common, they are clubbed together and a common order is passed after hearing the learned counsel on both the sides. 2. Aggrieved by the orders passed under section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1903, (1964) the petitioners preferred appeals to the Sessions Judge, Hassan, in Criminal Misc. Appeals 3/87 and 4/87 contending that (1) the orders of confiscation are illegal and arbitrary, (2) the confiscations are without jurisdiction as the authority is not empowered under the Act to confiscate, (3) when the evidence of transportation of forest produce not established, there should not have been confiscation, (4) even if the transportation of forest produce is proved, at best fine should have been levied instead of confiscating the vehicles and (5) the orders of confiscation are arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Both the appeals came to be clubbed by the learned Sessions Judge for...
J.R.R. Naidu Vs. Registrar, City Civil Courts
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2700
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. On the last occasion when this matter had come up for admission, I directed notice on I.A. I after admitting the Petition with a view to dispose of the matter on merits. Even thereafter none appears for the respondent. At my instance, Sri Muralidhar, learned Government Pleader, appears for the respondent and is heard in the matter. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that he sought for grant of certain certified copies of the Power of Attorney and a sale agreement upon which the suit is based. The office of the Civil Court raised on objection that these documents are not marked as exhibits in evidence and that therefore copies could not be granted. The trial Court relied upon Rule 230 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice. The said Rule reads as follows: 'A party to a suit or proceeding is entitled at any stage of the proceeding, to obtain copies of the record of the suit or proceeding including documents which have been admitted in evidence....
Jerome Crasta Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3212; 1992(1)KarLJ253
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. The short facts leading to the Writ Petition are as under:- The petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No. CNG 5838 developed engine trouble. The vehicle was garaged and the non-user of the vehicle was intimated on 1-1-1988. The documents relating to the vehicle also were surrendered with the Transport Authority. On 1-1-1988 an exemption was granted. On 12-2-1988 the vehicle was garaged. While the matter stood thus, on 4-12-1989 when it was intercepted, the officer made a Check Report to the following effect:- 'CHECK REPORT Sl. No. 17Place of Check: Sullia Bus Stand Date: 4-12-89Motor Vehicle No. CNG 5838 Time: 4.45 PMName, Father's name, age and addressof the Driver Does not knowR.O's (not legible)Name, Father's name and address Abdul Rahiman,of the Driver: s/o MoideenAge: 32 yearsName, Father's name, age and addressof the conductor: .........Permit No. N.P. Validity - Issued by -Nature of offences: 1. Driver failed to produce,R.C., F.C., I.C., Tax CardD.L.and Pe...
Venkatesh Narayanappa and Others Vs. Sri Vittal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ586; ILR1991KAR4061; 1991(3)KarLJ485
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional J.M.F.C., Sagar, in P.C.R. No. 25 of 1988 (C.C. No. 1084 of 1989) dated 20-7-1989 taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 342 read with Section 34, I.P.C. against Accused 1, 2, 3 and 6 and directing issue of summons to the said accused on the basis of the complaint that was lodged by the respondent herein on 18-2-1988 against the petitioners and others. 2. The main ground of attack of the petitioners herein to the order directing issue of summons to them is as follows : On the basis of the complaint received on 18-2-1988 the learned Magistrate instead of taking cognizance of the offences, he referred the same to the police under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. calling for report. Pursuant to the said direction the police made investigation and submitted his report which was received by the Court on 3-11-198. The case was adjourned thereafter to different dates and finally to 20-7-1989 and i...
M.V. Premkumar Vs. C. Sreerama Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR894; 1991(3)KarLJ290
Hiremath, J. 1. Appellants herein were plaintiffs in the Original Suit for a decree for redemption of the suit properties which are five in number. It is stated that these properties are in a prominent locality at Mysore City in Sayyaji Rao Road, being contiguous forming different parts of one building. They were subject matter of mortgage from time to time by the plaintiffs or their mother right from 1921. The mortgagees were Virupakshaiah, Tayub Sait, Abdul Karim, Mohammed Ghouse and Boraiah till the year 1934. For the purpose of this Appeal the Court is now concerned with the mortgage of the year 1934 dated 17-1-1934 for Rs 20,000/- with terms and conditions adumbrated therein. There was however a subsequent mortgage in favour of Cheluvaraya Setty, the deceased father of respondents. When the mortgage in favour of the prior mortgagees was subsisting the mortgagees committed default in payment of municipal taxes and the Mysore Municipality filed O.S.No. 716/1932-33 for recovery of Rs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »