Karnataka Court July 1992 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.
Leena Fernandes Vs. Planning Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3068; 1992(3)KarLJ355
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In these Petitions, the petitioners seek quashing of the building licence and the sanctioned plan issued to the fourth respondent by the first respondent - Planning Authority and the second respondent -City Corporation. There is also a prayer for a direction to enforce the Zonal Regulations issued under the Outline Development Plan (ODP) and Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). The further prayer seeks the demolition of the offending structure put up by the fourth respondent. The petitioners also have filed I.As.II and III, I.A.II for the amendment of the Writ Petition and to treat I.A.III as additional statement. Petitioners are permitted to seek this additional prayer and these I.As.II and III are read part of these Writ Petitions. The result is that the petitioners seek the quashing of two Government Orders, one dated 8th November 1984 and another dated 17th October 1985. As per the earlier order dated 8.11.84 Government accorded approval for relaxatio...
Bab Mahabaleshar Revankar Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1992
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...
Mohammed JalaludIn Vs. House Rent and Accommodation Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1992
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...
M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Expor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1992
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...
M.J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Imports ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1992
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 ...
Capt. VipIn Menon Vs. the State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1992
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...
Ralectronics Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1992
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...
K.C. Sashidhar Vs. Smt. Roopa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1992
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...
K.C. Sashidhar Vs. Roopa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1992
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...
K. Raja Rao Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, Dakshina Kannada ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1992
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ500
ORDER1. The petitioner in this case is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in No. 41/PD-IRD/DA-7, dated 24-4-1990, Annexure-E to the writ petition, in which order the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Further the petitioner has sought for a direction to the first respondent-bank to reinstate the petitioner in his post with all consequential benefits, urging the following facts and legal contentions.2. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Farm Representative and he has reported for duty on 1-4-1980 at Staff Training College, Udupi. Initially the appointment was for a period of 2 years on Probation. After successful completion of his Probationary Period, his services were confirmed by the first respondent-bank.3. The 3rd respondent issued the charge-sheet dated 17-9-1985 in exercise of his power conferred under Regulation 6 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Condu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »