Karnataka Court August 1992 Judgments
Smt. Kariyamma and Others Etc. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and Land ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant321; 1992(3)KarLJ573
ORDER1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of orders passed by the Executing Court, where in the Executing Court directed the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holders to produce Succession Certificate for enforcing the decretal claim and for purposes of collecting the decretal amounts. Details as to Civil Revision Petitions and execution proceedings are mentioned herein in tabular statement:--Tabular StatementTabular StatementName of parties in C. R. Ps.Ex. P.Date ofAwardCount.Institution of Ex. Proceedings2271/92 Kariyamma and 5 others190/9110-8-78C.J. Chitra-durgaBy L.Rs. of deceased Muddappa2272/92 Krishnappa and another74/9030-5-84'By L. Rs. of deceased Badappa2274/92 Chikkammaand others186/9110-8-78'By L. Rs. of deceased Kariyappa2273/92 Eramma and others.244/90'L. Rs. were brought on recordinEx. 235/89 after the death of decree holder Veeranna.2. Two important points have arisen for consideration. Point No. 1) Whether it is mandatory for the legal representative...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Mohammed Sharif
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1992
Reported in: 1993CriLJ747; 1992(4)KarLJ237
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 401, 397 and 482, Cr.P.C. by the State against the order dated 7-11-1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Cr.A. No. 7/88 confirming the order passed by the First Additional J.M.F.C., Gulbarga in C.C. No. 2540/84. 2. Though served the respondent has remained absent in this case. I have heard the learned Government Pleader for the State and perused the records of the case. 3. The respondent was prosecuted for the offencee punishable under Section 326, I.P.C. in C.C. No. 2540/84 on the file of the First Additional J.M.F.C., Gulbarga. On the basis of the evidence of the prosecution the learned First Additional J.M.F.C., Gulbarga held the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under section 326, IPC and he released the respondent on the probation of a good conduct under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. The State being aggrieved by the order of the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Suggulammagudda Mining Co. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2761; 1992(3)KarLJ590
Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. The facts briefly stated, which are considered necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition, are :The petitioner was granted a mining lease in respect of iron ore covering an area of 10.11 hectares in Sandur Taluk of Bellary District on 14-3-1972 for a period of 20 years by the first respondent under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short the Act 1957 and the Rules). The petitioner worked the area by investing substantial sum for developing the area and has carried on the operations. It filed an application for renewal of its mining lease in accordance with Rule 24A of the Rules. It contends that since no orders were passed on the renewal application within the statutory period there was a deemed rejection of the application. It filed a revision petition to the Central Government under Section 30 of the Act 1957 read with Rule 54 of the Rules. The revision petition was allowed on 13-3-1...
Tag this Judgment!Kariyamma Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2807
ORDERVasantha Kumar, J. 1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of orders passed by the Executing Court, wherein the Executing Court directed the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holders to produce Succession Certificate for enforcing the decretal claim and for purposes of collecting the decretal amounts. Details as to Civil Revision Petitions and execution proceedings are mentioned herein in tabular statement-Tabular StatementTabular StatementName ofparties in C.R.Ps.Ex.P.Date ofAwardCourtInstitutionof Ex. Proceedinqs2271/92 Kariyammaand 5 others190/9110-8-78C.J.Chitra durgaBy L.Rs.of deceased Muddappa2272/92 Krishnappa& anr.74/9030-5-84'By LRs. Ofdeceased Badappa2274/92 ChikkammaKariyappa & others186/9110-8-78'By L.Rs.of deceased2273/92 Erammaand others.244/90'L.Rs. were brought on record in Ex.235/89 after thedeath of decree-holder Veeranna.2. Two important points have arisen for consideration:Point No. 1) Whether it is mandatory for the legal representative/legal r...
Tag this Judgment!Satish Dattatri Vs. University of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2706; 1992(3)KarLJ594
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. The petitioners are Engineering students studying in the National Institute of Engineering at Mysore affiliated to the University of Mysore. They are studying B.E. Engineering Course of 4 years duration spread over in 8 semesters, each Semester being of 16 weeks duration. They were permitted the change of the branch on different dates from 15-11-1991 to 22-3-1991 as per Annexures C to H. They contend that they have more than 75% of attendance and that they have put in the required attendance at the College both before and after the change sought for by them was permitted and therefore they were eligible to take the III Semester Engineering Examination of the first respondent-University commencing from 22-1-1992. The University having examined the applications of the eligible candidates entitled to take examination assured the issuance of the examination admission tickets to all the petitioners and the undated hall tickets were issued to the petitioners. When ...
Tag this Judgment!Basavaraj Patil Vs. Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2940; 1992(3)KarLJ736
ORDERKedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These two Revision Petitions are directed against the common order passed on 15-1-1990 in M.A.Nos.1 of 1988 and 2 of 1988 by the Educational Appellate Tribunal and District Judge, Raichur, dismissing the appeals of the petitioners.2. Since both the Revision Petitions are filed against a common order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal and District Judge, Raichur, and common question of law and facts are involved, they are disposed of by a common order.3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner, Basavaraj Patil in C.R.P.No.2342 of 1990 is an appellant in M.A.No.1 of 1988 and the petitioner, Sidramareddy in C.R.P. No.2341/1990 is an appellant in M,A.No.2 of 1988 before the Educational Appellate Tribunal and District Judge, Raichur. Respondent is common in both the Revision Petitions.4. The petitioner Mr.Basavaraj Patil in C.R.P.No. 2342 of 1990 was appointed as F.D.C. in the Engineering College at Raichur run by the respondent, by its Or...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sadanand Rao Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3308
S.A. Hakeem, J.1. Since all these revisions pertain to the same assessee and involve common questions of facts and law, they are heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a hotel by name 'Lakshmi Bhavan' at Hubli. He is an assessee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'). For the period 1982-83, the petitioner filed an application in form No. 8 seeking the benefit of composition under section 17 of the Act. Subsequently the petitioner filed his return, declaring a total turnover of Rs. 97,752.45. The assessing authority having declined to accept the composition as prayed for by the petitioner issued a proposition notice and completed the assessment on the basis of best judgment. The composition amount payable on the gross turnover mentioned was Rs. 8,000 and as the business of the petitioner for tax purpose was only for two months, viz., February 2, 1983 to March 31, 1983 the total composition amount was determined at Rs. 1,334. 3. F...
Tag this Judgment!Dinakar Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3255
ORDERK.A. Swami, Ag. C.J. 1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the brother of the detenu, the order of detention dated 18th March 1992 bearing No. MAG.II/CR 1373/91-92 passed by the District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, Annexure-A and the order dated 8.5.1992 bearing No. HD 278 SST 92 Annexure-B passed by the State Government approving the order of detention at Annexure-A are challenged. 2. Sri T.J. Chouta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has put forth three contentions: (1) that the grounds of detention contain several non-existing grounds and incorrect facts; therefore, the detaining authority was misled by the grounds; as such there was no proper application of mind in passing the order of detention; (2) that the detention order could not have been passed for a period of more than three months having regard to the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Off...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Cheluvaiah Vs. Management, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3404; 1992(3)KarLJ600
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner is an employee of the 1st respondent which is a Public Sector undertaking. Years ago there was an industrial establishment known as Government Porcelains Factory which was run under the direct control of the Government of Karnataka. Later, in the year 1967, it was converted into a limited company and known as Mysore Porcelains Limited which was taken over as a subsidiary unit of the first respondent and thereafter it became a unit of the said 1st respondent-Company.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been in the service even prior to the taking over of the unit by the 1st respondent having been employed in the year 1958; that the petitioner was a member of the Executive Committee of the Government Porcelains Factory Employees' Association, that Association ceased to function in the year 1980; that a Union known as BHEL (EPD) Employees' Association came into existence owing to the unceasing efforts of the petitioner in its promotion an...
Tag this Judgment!Channappa G. Anagadi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: ILR1993KAR763; 1992(4)KarLJ456
ORDERShivappa, J.1. The petitioner has sought for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. It is the case of the prosecution that on 5.6.1992 at about 10 p.m. the complainant Smt.Khajabi was waiting at Bijapur Bus stand, one blue jeep run by one Sangappa Basappa Poojari along with the petitioner was on the way. The complainant made a hand signal and the said jeep was stopped. The driver of the jeep enquired her why and where she wanted to go. The complainant informed that she has to go to Sindagi. Then the driver and the petitioner assured that they will take her to Sindagi, took the complainant in the jeep, stopped after one kilometre and both the jeep driver and the petitioner committed rape on the complainant and thereafter again they travelled in the same jeep and on the way again twice they committed rape on the complainant, The jeep went out of order near Bijapur Railway line. At that time a police jeep came there and the police enquired the complainant. She gave the name of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »