Karnataka Court November 1995 Judgments
Madarbi, W/O Mahaboob Sab Vs. Mulla Sab Mardan Sab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1674; 1995(6)KarLJ444
ORDERM.M. Mirdhe, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Haveri, on 27.4.1982 granting occupancy rights in favour of R-1.2. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioners, Counsel for R-1 to R-3 and the Government Pleader for R-4 and R-5.3. R-1 Mulla Sab Mardan Sab filed Form No.7 claiming, occupancy rights in Sy.No.5 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas and Sy.No. 51 measuring 11 acres 5 guntas situated at Yettinahalli village in Haveri Taluk. His Form No.7 came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 3.9.1977. R-1 preferred Writ Petition No. 1058/1978 and that Writ Petition came to be allowed and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal, Haveri, for fresh disposal in accordance with law, After remand, the Tribunal recorded the statement of Mulla Sab Mardan Sab, statement of petitioner-1 and passed orders granting occupancy rights in these lands to Mulla Sab Mardan Sab. The petitioners challenged this order before this Court in Wr...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corpotaion Vs. Karnataka State Transpor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR770; 1995(6)KarLJ403
ORDERRaveendran, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. 26187 to 26198/1992 is the State Road Transport Undertaking ('KSRTC' for short). Petitioner challenges the order dated 2.4.1992 (Annexure-A) of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) directing grant of renewal of stage carriage permits to the third respondent in each of the said Petitions. The main Question that arises for Consideration in these cases is whether and in what circumstances traversing a notified route for a short distance, can be termed as intersection and not overlapping.2. The third respondent in each of the twelve Petitions sought renewal of their stage carriage permits relating to routes which included Mysore to KRS, Mysore to Bannur, Mysore to Honnavar, Mysore to Malavalli, Mysore to Kirangur Cross, Mysore to Tumkur, Bannur to Malavalli, KRS to Bylur and Saggyam to KRS. The line of travel of these routes traversed all or any of the following three sections of notified routes: (i) Mysore Bus...
Tag this Judgment!Jamal Khan Vs. Mujahid Ahamed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR146; 1996(1)KarLJ241
ORDERAswathanarayana Rao, J 1. These two Revision Petitions arise out of an order in H.R.C.Nos. 3359/84 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Court, Bangalore, dismissing the said petition by an order dated 19.1.1990. The said petition had been filed by the petitioner-landlord in C.R.P.No. 1473/90 against the respondent - tenant under Section 21 (1)(d) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (here in after wards referred to as 'the Act') praying for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property, namely a shop bearing No. 15 situated in O.K.Road, Basavaraja Market, Bangalore. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order in the said Eviction Petition, the landlord has preferred the Revision Petition in C.R.P.No. 1473/90. During the pendency of the Eviction Petition, the petitioner-landlord filed an application I.A.VI under Section 29(1) and (4) of the Act praying for a direction to the respondent-tenant to pay the arrears of rent due and on his failure to do so...
Tag this Judgment!Rangappa Vs. K. Ramachandra Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR134; 1996(1)KarLJ213
ORDERVishwanath, J 1. Heard, Admitted 2. In this Revision Petition the Second Respondent in the Court below (Revision-petitioner herein) has challenged the order dated 14.11.1995 passed in HRC 2303/1992 on the file of the II Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, rejecting I.A.No. 8 filed by the Revision-petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The prayer made in I.A.8 filed by the Revision-petitioner/2nd respondent is that he should be permitted to lead his evidence in his capacity as 2nd respondent.4. To appreciate the point for determination the few facts necessary are:-The Eviction Petition HRC.2303/1992 was filed by the landlord Ramachandra Murthy against the respondent-tenant Smt. Lalithamma. At the instance of the landlord, the Revision-petitioner Rangappa has been brought on record on 23.09.1995 as Second Respondent. After he was brought on record as Respondent No. 2 he filed I.A.No. 8 praying that he should be permitted to lead evidence in hi...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitabai Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1285; 1995(6)KarLJ239
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the order passed by Respondent - 3, Tahsildar, Jamkhandi, which is produced at Annexure 'G' and also to quash the mutation entry as per Annexure 'H'.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader for R-1 to R-3 and perused the records of the case.3. The case of the petitioners is as follows; One Lt. Adrushappa Gurusiddappa Desai was watan holder of Konnur village and he was in possession of watan property and he died intestate on 27.01.1973.4. Petitioners-1 and 2 and two others filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 6/76 before the Civil Judge, Bijapur, which came to be transferred to the Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, and that suit came to be numbered as O.S. 32/79. In that suit, O.S. 32/79, agricultural lands shown in schedule 'A' of the plaint were under the personal cultivation of Lt. Adrushappa Gurusiddappa Desai and they were never tenanted lands. Schedule 'B'...
Tag this Judgment!Veterinary Council of India Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR67; 1995(6)KarLJ580
ORDERBharuka, J 1. These Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the communication dated 21.9.1995 (Annexure-P) of the respondent - University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore under which it has been communicated to the First petitioner that the nine candidates nominated by it for admission to B.V.Sc. and A.H. Degrees cannot be admitted; as also for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second and third respondents to comply with the provisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act (in short, 'the Central Act') and the Regulations made thereunder with special reference to take on rolls the nominees sent by the first petitioner.2. The Veterinary Council of India (in short, 'the Council') which has been established under Section 3 of the Central Act is the first petitioner herein. The second petitioner is one of the candidates who has been recommended for admission to the course in the College of the respondent University as per the letter of the Council at Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Vs. Common Entrance Test Cell
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR74; 1995(6)KarLJ195
ORDERBharuka, J 1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the father of one C.L. Nagesh (hereinafter referred as 'Candidate') for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent-Principal to permit his son to join the College in B.D.S. Course as per the provisional admission order (Annexure 'G') dated 10.11.1995 issued by Respondent- Special Officer. The candidate is a non-Karnataka Student. Pursuant to the Order of the Supreme Court dated 11.8.1995/ 20.10.1995 passed in T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION vs . STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., : AIR1995SC2431 , directing allotment of 15% out of 50% payment seats to non-Karnataka students, the candidate also applied for having a Dental seat. Accordingly, as per his ranking, he was favoured with the provisional admission order (Annexure 'G') on his depositing Rs. 53,350/- as tuition fee. On being approached, the Principal of the Respondent-College refused to permit the candidate to join the College without assigning any reason in writing. Accordingly, the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Muddukrishna Vs. Rudranamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR569
Vishwanath, J. 1. Heard both Counsel. Admitted.2. These four Revision Petitions arise out of the common order passed on 30.5.1995 in HRC.2562/1991 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, dismissing I.A.V under Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the Muzrai Department (Government) and another application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC by one Muddukrishna.3. The facts necessary are:The landlady Rudranamma filed two eviction petitions - one eviction petition HRC.2561/91 filed against the alleged tenant Venkatesh and another eviction petition HRC.2562/91 against two alleged tenants Kodandapani and Byla Hanumaiah. H.R.C. 2561/91 has been filed on the ground under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act and H.R.C.2562/91 has been filed on the ground under Section 21(1)(a) and (t) (arrears of rent and sub-letting) of the K.R.C. Act. It is not disputed that in both Cases, the alleged tenants have denied the right of the alleged landlady to claim arrears of rent. T...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Subramanya Sri Devara Bhandram Vs. Srinivasa Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1485
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This is a Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the Judgment and order dated 7.3.1994 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and C.J.M. Mangalore, D.K. in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 61/92 - Sri Subramanya Sri Devara Bhandram v. T. Srinivas Rao dismissing the defendant's appeal and confirming the order of temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court to the following effect: -'The application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. (I.A.II) is hereby allowed with costs. It is hereby further ordered that the defendant, its men, servants and all persons claiming through it are temporarily restrained by way of temporary injunction from holding the celebration of Avabhratha Snana and Katte pooje to the presiding deity of the defendant temple at any other place except the tank situated in S.No. 11/5 in Thokoor village of Mangalore Taluk, during the pendency of the above suit. The plaintiff shall pay necessary cha...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Education Society Vs. the Commissioner of Public Instruction
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2114; 1996(5)KarLJ27
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Two important questions have been raised by the petitioners' in this Writ Petition; the first of them being with regard to the ambit and scope of the powers that are vested in the authorities belonging to the Education Department of the State Government, and the second aspect of the matter is with regard to the enforceability of orders or directions that may be issued by those authorities. In essence, these two questions are somewhat interrelated but having regard to the fact that they concern a very important field namely the Management of Primary & Secondary Educational Institutions in the State of Karnataka, it is very necessary that there should be a clear pronouncement in this regard. The background to the dispute is being briefly summarised only to the extent that it is relevant.2. The Petitioner-Society, which is the Shivaji Education Society is a Registered Co-operative Society and runs three educational institutions in the District of North Kanara. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »