Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2415
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 6th August 1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 26362 of 1990. The Writ Petition has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the State Government to grant permission to shift the petitioner- Institution from Tumkur District to Belgaum District.2. Petitioner in the Writ Petition is the respondent in this Writ Appeal. It was running a Physical Education Training College at Tarur in Tumkur District. It sought for permission to shift the said Institution to Harugeri in Belgaum District. The application was not considered by the State Government. Therefore, the respondent approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 7614 of 1990. This Court by the order dated 10th July 1990 directed the State Government to consider the application of the respondent for shifting the College from Tarur in Tumkur District to Harugeri in Belgaum District as expeditiously as possible and not later than one month from the date of the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR3477; 1992(4)KarLJ306
ORDERK.A. Swami, Ag. C.J.1. This Review Petition is filed by the Judgment Debtor No. 2 to review the Order dated 5th June 1990 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 2542/1986.2. A contention was raised before the learned single Judge that as Laxmeshwar, J. has retired, the order passed by Laxmeshwar, J. cannot be reviewed by any other Judge of this Court therefore, Review Petition was not maintainable. The Decision of this Court in SHARANAPPA H.A. v. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS., 1989(2) KLJ 181 was also relied upon in support of the above said contention. In the light of this contention Hakeem, J. thought it necessary to refer it to a Division Bench in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 5 of Chapter III of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') which had not been noticed in Sharanappa's case. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is before a Division Bench.3. In the light of the contentions urged on both sides, the followi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2379; 1992(3)KarLJ24
K.A. Swami, Ag. C.J.1. This Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 14th January 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21455 of 1990, The learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 3.2. The premises in question is No. 41. Osman Khan Road, S.J.P. Road Cross, Bangalore. It is a non-residential premises. Landlord obtained possession of this premises under Section 21(1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act on 30th June 1987.2.1. The case of the respondents is that after obtaining possession of the premises the landlord did not occupy and he allowed it to remain vacant; that the Rent Controller made a local inspection on 2-1-1990, and found the premises locked; that he also enquired the neighbours and learnt that the premises was vacant; that on a second inspection the Rent Controller found one Simon working as a painter in the schedule premises and he also noticed certain painting materials, suc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2656; 1992(3)KarLJ579
K.A. Swami Ag. C.J.1. This Writ Petition is preferred against the order dated 14.1.1992 passed in W.P.No. 19540 of 1985. The appellants are the petitioners in the Writ Petition. 2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioners sought for issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ to quash the Notification No. 682, dated 2-9-1982 (Ann.A) and also the Notification No. 696 dated 10- 9-1982 (Ann.B) issued by the State of Karnataka. The petitioners also further prayed for issue of a Writ in the nature of prohibition directing the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore, from proceeding further in C.C,No. 72/85. 3. The learned single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition on the ground that the offences punishable under the various Central Enactments mentioned in the Notification dated 10.9.1982 are triable by the Court established under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, merely because the Court is called a Special Court it is not possible to hold that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1992(40)ECC446
K.A. Swami, Ag.C.J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.1.1992 passed in W.P.No. 19540 of 1985. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petition.2. In the writ petition, the petitioners sought for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash to notification No. 682, dated 2.9.1982 (Ann.A) and also the notification No. 696 dated 10.9.1982 (Ann.B) issued by the State of Karnataka. The petitioners also further prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition directing the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore, from proceeding further in C.C.No. 72/85.3. The learned singled Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the offences punishable under the various central enactments mentioned in the notification dated 10.9.1982 are triable by the Courts established under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, merely because the court is called a special Court it is not possible to hold that an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1992CriLJ3737; II(1992)DMC288; ILR1992KAR2622; 1992(3)KarLJ19
ORDER1. One Vipin Menon has filed this petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 15-5-1992 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, in Criminal Misc. No. 198/1992. Though the petition was filed only against the State, subsequently as directed by the Court, Sri V. P. R. Nambiar, father-in-law of the petitioner, has been impleaded as the second respondent.2. The facts that are not in dispute may be set out briefly as follows :The petitioner is the father of a minor female child, named Soumya. She is aged about seven years. Respondent 2 is the maternal grand-father of the minor child. Soumya was residing with V. P. R. Nambiar for some time prior to 29-4-1992. On 29-4-1992, Nambiar gave a complaint to J.C. Nagar Police Station alleging that the petitioner and his sisters had kidnapped Soumya at about 10.30 a.m. on that day. The police did not register a case either under section 154, Cr.P.C. or under section 155, Cr.P.C. on the basis of that compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1992(40)ECC399; 1993LC521(Karnataka); 1993(67)ELT810(Kar); ILR1992KAR3427
K.A. Swami, Acting C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 26th March 1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition 2280 of 1989.2. Petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant before us. It has sought for quashing the show cause notice bearing OC. No. 1171/88 dated 23-5-1988 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Yeshwanthpur Range, Bangalore under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The show cause notice dated 23-5-1988 covers the period from 1-1-1988 to 30-4-1988. The same officer has also issued another show cause notice bearing OC. No. 1867/88 dated 16th September 1988 under the very same provision of the Act, which covers the period from 1st May 1988 to August 1988. The appellant petitioner has also challenged the said show cause notice. Thus, in the writ petition the Show Cause Notices dated 23-5-1988 and 16-9-1988 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Yeshwanthpur Rang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1993Kant120; 1992(3)KarLJ318
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dated 4-2-92 passed in G & W5/91.2. A few facts briefly to state are that the petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband in the Court below. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the respondent got married at Mysore and thereafter they started marital life at Bombay. The petitioner came to Mysore, her parental home, in the year 1990 for her confinement and the child was born at Mysore. It is an admitted fact that the wife along with her child went to Bombay to reside with her husband while they were living at Bombay, it is the case of the wife that while she was residing with her husband, she was driven out of the house along with her mother and the custody of the child was not given to her as such the circumstances warranted her to seek the intervention of the Court for the custody of the child. A preliminary objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the child wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2791
ORDERVasanatha Kumar, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 4-2-92 passed in G & W5/91.2. A few facts briefly to state are that the petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband in the Court below. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner and the respondent got married at Mysore and thereafter they started marital life at Bombay. The petitioner came to Mysore, her parental home, in the year 1990 for her confinement and the child was born at Mysore. It is an admitted fact that the wife along with her child went to Bombay to reside with her husband; while they were living at Bombay, it is the case of the wife that while she was residing with her husband, she was driven out of the house along with her mother and the custody of the child was not given to her as such the circumstances warranted her to seek the intervention of the Court for the custody of the child. A Preliminary objection has been raised regarding the maintainability of the Petition on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1992KAR2424; 1992(3)KarLJ330
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J.1. These two Revision Petitions are directed against the common order on I ANos.III and VI in O.S.No.1061 of 1984 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. The facts leading to these two Petitions, briefly stated, are as under:2. Plaintiffs and defendants-2 and 3 in O.S.No.1061/1984 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore are the legal heirs of late P.Narayana Hebbar. The suit property was the absolute property of Narayana Hebbar. It consists of three storeyed building where Narayana Hebbar was running a Hotel by name 'Eastern Lunch Home', Since his health deteriorated, he and his eldest son P.Parameshwara Hebbar -defendant-2 formed a partnership firm and the management of the Hotel was left to the latter. Since,-however, the business did not improve, the Hotel was leased to M/s.Elengikal Brothers, by a registered deed dated 25-3-1964. However, the same was sub-leased by the latter to defendant-1 - B.VishwanathaShetty, who is the petitioner in both these Revisi...
Tag this Judgment!