Karnataka Court October 1994 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.
Smt. Vrishendramani Vs. K. Venugopal Rai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant230; ILR1994KAR3127; 1995(1)KarLJ241
ORDERThis revision petition is filed against the order dated 22-4-1994 passed in Revision (Rent) Petition No. 332/87, on the question of maintainability of revision petition.1. Few facts to briefly state are :-- The parties are described as landlord and tenant. K. Venugopal Rao (Landlord) initiated eviction proceedings against one K. Hithavanthi (tenant) under clauses (a), (b),(c) and (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (chronicled as 'the Act'), the proceedings being numbered as HRC. 100/80. After contest, the trial Court granted the reliefs sought for by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a), (c), and (h) of the Act. Aggrieved against the order of eviction, tenant preferred a revision to the Court of the District Judge under Section 50 of the Act and proceedings was numbered as R.(R)P. 332/87. 2. During the pendency of the first revision proceedings, original tenant K. Hithavanthi expired and on 13-7-1989 one Smt. Vrishendramani made ...
Leelamma Samuel Vs. Francis
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3143
ORDERVasantha Kumar, J. 1. This Revision is directed against the order dated 6-7-94, wherein objections raised by the tenant regarding admissibility of an instrument purported to be a lease transaction for a period of eleven months was over-ruled and the trial Court permitted the landlord to produce and get the instrument marked as exhibit by way of legal evidence.2. Few facts to briefly state are : The landlord initiated eviction proceedings under Clause (h) of Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 against the tenant, the proceeding being numbered as HRC 10583/93. Tenant contested the matter and denied the relationship of Landlord and Tenant as between the parties to the cause. During the pendency of the proceedings, landlord intended to place reliance on a Deed of Lease said to have been executed by the tenant Smt Leelamma Samuel to prove jurisdictional issue namely existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in view of specific denial o...
Gayathri Vs. Managing Director, Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR661]; ILR1994KAR3752; 1995(2)KarLJ335; (1995)IILLJ1148Kant
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. Heard Counsel on both sides. These three Writ Petitions raise a common point namely the issue as to whether in the case of an employee whose services with the respondent-Corporation have come to a premature end by virtue of a health or accidental disability they would be entitled to claim compassionate employment for some other eligible member of the family. The dates in question are not of much consequence but the common factor in all these three Writ Petitions is the fact that pursuant to a health situation having arisen whereby on examination, it was found that the respective petitioners were not in a position to carry out their duties with the respondent-Corporation, an order was passed voluntarily retiring them. Subsequently, applications were made on the ground that their cases were virtually on par with those where the bread winner of the family has died while in service and that therefore, one of the dependent children should be employed by the respondent-Co...
State of Karnataka Vs. Shivanand Shankarappa Kulli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)714; ILR1994KAR3168; 1995(1)KarLJ494
ORDERVenkataraman, J. 1. Though this matter has come up for admission, as both sides are represented, the matter is treated as admitted and heard on merits.2. The P.S.I. Banahatti Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The offence is alleged to have been committed on 21-1-1991. On the same day, the accused-respondent was apprehended and produced before the Court. The Charge Sheet was filed on 14-8-1991. During the course of the proceedings, the learned Special Judge having found that the charge sheet had not been filed within six months from the date of the arrest of the accused, relying on the Decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in : ILR1992KAR2725 State of Karnataka v. Chakrapani, stopped further proceedings under Section 167(5) read with Section 258 Cr.P.C.3. The main contention of the learned State Public Prosecutor is that, in view of the Decision...
State of Karnataka Vs. Pragathi T.T.i.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3234; 1994(4)KarLJ581
Eshwara Prasad, JI.A.I. for dispensation ordered.2. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Appeals is raised by Sri K.N. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents. He contends vehemently that in view of Rule 18 of the Writ Proceedings Rules 1977, it was open to the appellants to have moved the learned Single Judge for discharging or varying the order after giving notice to the respondents and that being so, it was not open to the appellants to file the Appeals.3. It is pertinent to note that under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961 an Appeal lies from a Judgment, Decree, Order or Sentence passed by a learned Single Judge to the Division Bench. Under Section 10(iv)(a), an appeal from any original Judgment, Order or Decree passed by a learned Single Judge in exercise of the powers under clause (1) of Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India shall lie to the Division Bench of two Judges. This power of the Division Bench to entertain Writ A...
Smt. Sangeetha S. Chugh Vs. Ram Narayan V. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant112; I(1995)DMC44; ILR1994KAR3318; 1994(4)KarLJ696
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is the respondent-wife in M.C. 106/93 on the file of the Additional Family Judge,Bangalore.The Ist respondent herein,the husband,moved the aforesaid matrimonial case under Section 13(1)(i) and (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is alleged by the petitioner that the application is made reckless and vexatious allegations, attributing to the life of the petitioner and that of her sister.It is averred that the petitioner is residing in Bombay and, according to her, she made to travel to Bangalore for the purpose of conducting the case.She filed the present civil petition seeing transfer of M.C.No.106/95 from the file of the Additional Family Judge,Bangalore, to any other Court having competent jurisdiction in the interests of justice and equity.2. The 1st respondent has brought to the notice of this Court several facts. The allegation made in the transfer petition is that the Presiding Officer is showing undue haste and interest in the case which creates a re...
Brigadier M.S. Oberoi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3313; 1994(5)KarLJ49
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a very Senior Officer of the Armed Forces and he has through the present Petition assailed the correctness of the order passed by the Central Government under Section 19 of the Army Act on 23-4-1991 compulsorily retiring him from service. The order proceeds on the footing that the petitioner is alleged to have been guilty of certain acts which in the opinion of the Army authorities and the Central Government constituted serious misconduct which justified a direction to him to resign from service. The petitioner at that point of time had more or less agreed to this proposal but had requested that he should be permitted to resign from a slightly later date. This was unacceptable whereupon the order in question came to be passed. The petitioner has through the present Petition challenged the validity of that order principally on the ground that it was unjustified. He relies on the fact that as far as his long career as an Officer of the I...
Estate Officer, University of Agricultural Sciences Vs. Savitramma and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1994
Reported in: 1995ACJ71
R. Ramakrishna, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is by the Estate Officer, University of Agricultural Sciences, who is the 2nd respondent in MVC No. 600 of 1983. The appellant has questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. The deceased Suryaprakash, husband of the first respondent and father of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, died due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 27.7.1983 at 3.30 p.m. at Jayamahal Road, Bangalore. At the time of the accident the deceased was driving the autorickshaw bearing No. MED 2103. This autorickshaw was dashed by the University bus bearing No. CAA 1084. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the legal representatives and have filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/-. This claim was opposed by the appellant representing the University.3. The Tribunal has initially considered issue No. 1. By appreciating the materials placed by both the...
D.R. Kodandarama Reddy Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR303; 1995(1)KarLJ344
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J 1. By this Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari for quashing the Preliminary Notification issued by the first respondent so far as it relates to the land belonging to the petitioner, bearing Sy.No. 52/2-A of Puttenahalli Village, South Taluk, Bangalore, measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, by the land Acquisition Notification No. LAQ(1)SR-14/8.6-87 dated 24.10.86, copy of which is Annexure-B to the Writ Petition. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the Final Notification issued by the respondent-2, vide Notification No. RD.164/AQB/83 dated 23.1.88, so far as it relates to the land bearing Sy.No. 52/2-A of Puttenahalli measuring 1 acre 6 guntas, copy of which is Annexure-D to the Writ Petition. The petitioner has also prayed for grant or issuance of such other and further Writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit.2. The brief facts of the case are:That the petit...
B.T. Sakku Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant192; ILR1994KAR3267; 1995(1)KarLJ361
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23-4-1993 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 5988, 1989. By the said judgment, the learned Additional City Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 2. When the matter has come up for admission, the learned Counsel on both sides submitted that the matter may be taken up for final disposal. It is under these circumsiances, the appeal was taken up for final disposal. 3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under: Plaintiff-appellant filed the aforesaid suit before the lower Court praying for a judgment and decree declaring the preliminary notification hearing No. HC. PR. AI,AO 389 BDA 76-77, dated 21-3-1977 and published in the official gazette dated 5-5-1977 and the final notification No. HUD/49/MNJ/78, dated 14-5-1980 and published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 12-6-1980 so far as they relate to the suit schedule property are pull and vo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »