Karnataka Court April 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.
Venkataswamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1559; 1995(4)KarLJ247
Mohan Kumar, J. 1. Issue Rule.2. When this Petition came up for hearing, both sides agreed that the Writ Petition itself can be disposed of.3. The facts of the case disclose a rather unfortunate situation the petitioner has been placed. No statement of objection has been filed and, therefore, the facts can be treated as admitted.4. The petitioner was originally appointed as a temporary Conductor in 1971 by the 2nd respondent. He claims to have served as such for two years. Thereafter, he was discharged. It is alleged by the petitioner that in view of the various Decisions of the Supreme Court, referred to in para-2 of the Writ Petition, the authorities issued a Circular to reinstate the employees terminated from service without enquiry. Accordingly, Annexure-B Circular was issued. According to the petitioner, his case was considered and Annexure-C appointment order dated 27-1-1988 was issued. He is serial No.4 in the said order.5. The perils of the petitioner started since then. He all...
Cashmir Fernandes Vs. Sri B.A. Rahiman and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant375; ILR1994KAR1963; 1994(2)KarLJ622
ORDER1. Rule.2. The petitioner is an agricultural tenant in respect of land bearing T.S. No. 254 measuring 69 cents and T.S. No. 277 measuring 06 cents situated at Kodialbail in Mangalore Town, Dakshina Kannada District. The application filed by him in Form No. 7 seeking for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the above lands was partly allowed in the earlier round of litigation. Against the said order the petitioner approached this court. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. After the remand, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of both the items of lands in favour of the petitioner. This order of the Land Tribunal was again impugned by the first respondent and one Judith Mascarenhas. This is again allowed by this court and remanded the matter once again to the Land Tribunal, for fresh enquiry.3. In the third round of litigation, the Land Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner. This order wa...
T. Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, by C.O.D. Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)ALT(Cri)651; ILR1994KAR1608
ORDER1. The revision petitioners have questioned the taking of cognizance and issue of process by the learned Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shimoga by orders dated 13-12-1993 and 16-12-1993 in C.C. No. 437 of 1993. 2. Revision Petition No. 715 of 1993 is by Accused No. 2 and Revision Petition No. 13 of 1994 is by Accused No. 3 3. Since a common question of law is involved in both these petitions, they have heard together and the following order is passed. 4. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners, a few facts are relevant and they are as follows :- On 14-12-1992 one K. G. Basavarajappa and his wife Dakshayaniyamma were found dead in their house situated at 4th Cross, Jyothirao Beedi, Vidyanagar, Shimoga, Initial investigation disclosed that it is a case of suicide. Therefore, a case under UDRR No. 33 of 92 read with Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered. Later on a complaint dated 31-3-1993 was lodged that the couple had died a homicidal death. A cas...
Times Publishing House Ltd. Vs. the Financial Times Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2068; 1995(1)KarLJ219
R. Ramakrishna, J.1. This Appeal is confined to the order on I.A.No. I, dated 2-3-1984 passed by the 17th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No. 7087 of 1983. The learned Civil Judge passed a common order on I.A.Nos. I and II. I.A.No. I is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first respondent prayed for grant of a temporary injunction ^straining the appellant and the second respondent from printing, publishing or in any manner using in relation to any news papers, publications, magazines, periodicals or stationery bearing the impugned trade mark 'Financial Times' or any other deceptively similar trade mark so as to infringe the plaintiff's registered trade mark No. 468937. By I.A.No. II the relief claimed was an order of temporary injunction under 'he same provisions of law to restrain the appellant to pass off or enable others to pass off the first respondent's publication arid for the benefit of the first respondent a...
T. Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, by C.O.D. Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-19-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1491; 1995(1)KarLJ584
ORDERR. Ramakrishna, J.1. The revision petitioners have questioned the taking of cognizance and issue of process by the learned Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., Shimoga by orders dated 13-12-1993 and 16-12-1993 in C.C. No. 437 of 1993.2. Revision Petition No. 715 of 1993 is by Accused No. 2 and Revision Petition No. 13 of 1994 is by Accused No. 3.3. Since a common question of law is involved in both these petitions, they have heard together and the following order is passed.4. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners, a few facts are relevant and they are as follows :-On 14-12-1992 one K.G. Basavarajappa and his wife Dakshayaniyamma were found dead in their house situated at 4th Cross, Jyothirao Beedi, Vidyanagar, Shimoga. Initial investigation disclosed that it is a case of suicide. Therefore, a case 'under UDRR No. 33 of 92 read with Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered. Later on a complaint dated 31-3-1993 was lodged that the couple had died a homicid...
Shreejee Plastics and Etc. Etc. Vs. the Karnataka Electricity Board an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant57; ILR1994KAR1151; 1994(3)KarLJ447
ORDERS. B. Majmudar, C. J. 1. In this group of writ appeals a common question is posed for our consideration namely, whether the Karnataka Electricity Board functioning under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act 1948 and the Karnataka Electricity Board Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 is required to follow the modicum of enquiry and for that purpose to hear the consumer of electricity when it is alleged that the consumer Or his agent or servant has committed or was committing an offence in terms of Ss. 39, 44 or any other provisions of the Act or the regulations and especially when the consumer is alleged to have indulged in dishonest abstraction, use, consumption of Electricity or interference with the metering Equipment or Accessories and whether in such a case the Board can estimate the value of electricity thus abstracted, used or diverted without hearing the consumer and only remedy available to the consumer is to prefer an appeal under the relevant regulations against ...
Anna Mary Pinto Vs. Urban Anthony Lobo
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-18-1994
Reported in: II(1994)DMC260; ILR1994KAR1173; 1994(2)KarLJ481
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. In this case the office has put up before this Full Bench for confirmation a Decree Nisi passed by Justice Venkatachala, as he then was, on 1.6.1990 in this very Civil Petition2. The learned Single Judge in the first instance has issued Decree Nisi. That was under Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act'). In that view of the matter, there is no question of Decree being placed before Full Bench for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act and it is only such matters which are passed by the District Judge that could be placed before High Court for confirmation before the Full Bench as provided under Section 17 of the Act. Present proceeding is not one such case. Therefore, the office has to place these papers before the learned Single Judge taking up Civil Petitions for confirmation of the Decree Nisi passed earlier by the learned Single Judge on 1.6.1990. It is true that it was placed before Mr. Justice Hanumanthapoa who in turn directe...
Annappa Reddy Vs. S. Suresh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant119; ILR1994KAR1933; 1994(4)KarLJ510
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order dated 20-10-1992 passed bythe XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore onI. A. No. VII in Execution Case No. 624/75 onhis file, dismissing the application filed by thepetitioner under S. 151, C.P.C., for recallingthe delivery warrant.2. The facts in brief are :The petitioner suffered a decree and the property bearing Sy. No. 46/3 and 46/2 of Sarakki village Bangalore South Taluk measuring 1 acre 30 guntas with an R.C.C. house was brought to sale and the sale proclamation was issued on 3/10-3-1976. Spot sale was conducted on 3-3-1976. In view of Rule 138 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice the Court has to conduct the sale as per the sale notice in Court on 10-3-1976, but no sale was held on that date. An application was filed under O. 21, R. 90 of the C.P.C. on 10-3-76 which was numbered as LA. IV, not to accept the bid and challenging the spot sale. It was posted for objection. The Court advanced the case and accepted the spot sale ...
Smt. Mangala Vs. Smt. Jayabai and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant276; II(1994)DMC214; ILR1994KAR1282; 1994(3)KarLJ481
ORDERVasanthakumr, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 3/1975 on the file of the Civil Judge, Belgaum wherein the suit is filed by one Mangala daughter of VirupaxDeshpande seeking for partition of 1 / 4 share in the suit schedule properties, she having succeeded to the estate of her late father Virupax Deshpande who died intestate leaving behind wife Smt. Jayabai and three daughters inclusive of the plaintiff was dismissed. The genealogical tree of the family of Virupax Deshpande being- Virupax Deshpande (died on 30-4-1962) = Smt. Jayabai (First Defendant) ___________________|_________________________ | | | Smt. Manjula bai. Smt. Meera Smt. Managala (second defendant) (third defendant) (plaintiff)Few facts to briefly state are : 2. During the lifetime of Virupax Deshpande, the schedule properties were joint Hindu family properties at the hands of Virupax Deshpande. Virupax Deshpande dies on 30-4-1962 intestate leaving wife and daughters as men...
Laxmi and Others Vs. Seethamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant368; 1994(3)KarLJ19
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Puttur in R.A. No. 13/1979. By the said judgment, the learned Civil Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 15-1-1971 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Puttur in O.S. No. 469/1968. The learned Principal Munsif by the said judgment had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent 1 Seethamma. This second appeal has been referred to the Division Bench by an order dated 29-8-1991 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under :Plaintiff-Seethamma, defendants 8 to 10 and defendants 12 to 27 were the members of a family governed by the Aliyasanthana Law. There was a partition in their family during the year 1951. Ex. P1 is the copy of the registered partition deed dated 19-1-1951. In the said partition, the properties described in various schedules of the partition deed w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »