Karnataka Court November 1995 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.
Swamy B.N. and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1995
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1169Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. These group of petitions relates to the year 1992 and 1993. In fact, despite the fact that the subject-matter of these petitions is something like eight years old, the earlier orders passed by this Court will indicate that the grievance of the entire set of petitioners who are Law Officers of the B.D.A. was to the effect that they are kept in a state of uncertainty insofar as no regulations had been framed as far as their employment is concerned and that therefore, they were highly prejudiced. The added circumstances to my mind which also requires to be taken into account is the fact that the petitioners are all performing various legal functions and are effectively Advocates which is a matter which this Court requires to take special cognizance of. Pursuant to the earlier orders passed, the Government finally approved the regulations and the basic grievance therefore is redressed. At that stage one further difficulty emerged which 1 shall briefly summarize. In...
Jayathirth Ramacharya Gudi Vs. Bindumadhavacharaya Srinivasacharaya Gu ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR941; 1996(1)KarLJ124
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This is a Revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. from the Judgment and order dated 27.1.95 passed by the Civil Judge, Haveri in Misc. Appeal No. 21/94 (Jayathirth Ramacharya Gudi and Anr. v. Bindumadhavachar Srinivasachaiya Gudi and Ors.) dismissing the Appeal filed by defendants - 4 and 5 from the order of temporary injunction issued against them by the Trial Court i.e. the Munsiff, Haveri while disposing of I.A.Nos. 2 and 4 in Original Suit No. 165/92 vide its order dated 3.11.94. The lower Court affirmed the order of the Trial Court.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs opposite party filed the suit against defendants-1 to 3 namely i.e. the present respondents-4 to 6, claiming the decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants in the suit namely 1 to 3 and their servants or agents permanently from restoring and giving or supplying any electrical energy to the suit schedule property and the welt therein in any manner whatsoever. ...
B.N. Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1295; 1996(2)KarLJ142
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. These group of Petitions relate to the year 1992 and 1993. In fact, despite the fact that the subject matter of these Petitions is something like eight years old, the earlier Orders passed by this Court will indicate that the grievance of the entire set of petitioners who are Law Officers of the BDA was to the effect that they are kept in a state of uncertainty in so far as no Regulations had been framed as far as their employment is concerned and that therefore, they were highly prejudiced.The added circumstances to my mind which also requires to be taken into account is the fact that the petitioners are all performing various legal functions and are effectively Advocates which is a matter which this Court requires to take special cognizance of. Pursuant to the earlier Orders passed the Government finally approved the Regulations and the basis grievance therefore is redressed. At that stage one further difficulty emerged which I shall briefly summarize. In the enti...
Rudrappa Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3313; 1996(5)KarLJ59
Pendse, C.J. 1. An area of 2 acres of agricultural land out of Survey No. 53/4 in the Village, Kamasagara in Channagiri Taluk of Shimoga District, was granted by the Competent Authority in favour of the late husband of respondent-3. The Saguvali Chit, which is in the nature of Grant Certificate, was issued in favour of the grantee on April 17, 1940, in accordance with the Mysore Land Grant Rules. The grant was subject to certain conditions and the principal condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the land at any time. The Government had a right to resume the land in case the grantee committed any breach of the conditions. In spite of the condition of non-alienability, the grantee sold the land to the appellant's father by registered Sale Deed dated May 31, 1957. It is not in dispute that the appellant's father and after his demise, the appellant, continued to remain in possession from the date of sale.2. The Government of Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and S...
Shanaz Begum Vs. Rehana Begum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3622; 1996(1)KarLJ137
ORDERVishwanath, J1. Both Counsel present. Heard.Admitted.2. In this Revision Petition filed by the Revision petitioner; tenants the Order passed by the learned Additional Small Cause Judge on 29.9.1995 in H.R.C.No. 3398/82 rejecting the I.A.19 filed by the Revision petitioners-tenants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, has been challenged.3. The facts which are necessary to note are:-The landlady filed Eviction Petition against the tenant (since deceased by LRs) under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. This Petition came to be dismissed by the learned Small Causes Judge. Thereupon, the landlady filed a Revision Petition CRP 448/89 before this Court. This Court allowed the Revision Petition in part and set aside the Order of the lower Court dismissing the Eviction Petition. This Court held that the claim of the landlady was bonafide and reasonable and that the hardship that the tenant would suffer in case eviction is granted would not be greater than the hardship that the peti...
Venkataramaiah Setty Vs. Puttamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR549
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 6th respondent in Misc. case No. 668/89 against the order dated 02.07.1991 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Metropolitan area, Bangalore, allowing I.A.No. III filed Under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC.2. The facts of the case very briefly are that :3. The respondents 1 to 5 in this Civil Revision Petition who are petitioners in Misc. Petition 668/89 filed an application under Section 92 read with Section 151 of CPC in the Court of the Principal City Civil Judge, Bangalore, praying for grant of leave to them to institute a suit against the respondents and sought direction of the Court for forming a proper scheme for the management of the affairs of the Trust, appointment of Trustees and other reliefs. The case of the respondents 1 to 5 who are the petitioners in Misc. case 668/89 was that there is a Public Trust called Arasappa Choultry situated in Nagarthapet, Bangalore meant for the benefit of the Nagartha Community. The said...
Narayana Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3569
ORDERShivaprakash, J.1. The petitioner is an employee working in respondent-Bank. It seems the wife of the petitioner has 'undergone sterilization operation' in the year 1989.2. In this Petition, the petitioner on the basis of the Notification dated 30.3.1994, published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 31.3.1994, claims exemption from payment of Professional Tax. Copy of the said Notification is produced and marked as Annexure-B. The text of the Notification reads as hereunder:'No. FD.12.CPI 94 (III) Bangalore, dated 30th March 1994. KARNATAKA GAZETTE (EXTRAORDINARY), dated 31st March 1994.In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1976), the Government of Karnataka, hereby exempts with effect from the First day of April 1994, the tax payable under the said Act by a person having single child and who has undergone sterilization operation, subject to production of a certificate from...
Mallaiah Vs. Mallikarjuna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1281
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners praying to quash the order passed by the Land Tribunal produced at Annexure-A.2. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for R-1 and the Additional Government Pleader for R-4 and R-5 and perused the records of the case.3. It is not disputed in this case that petitioners-1, 2 and R-1 are the sons of one late Puttamallaiah petitioners-1 (a) to 1 (e) are the heirs of petitioner-1. It is also not disputed in this case that Puttamallaiah, father of petitioners-1 and 2 and R-1, was the tenant of the lands in question. The said Puttamallaiah had filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights in the lands in question. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of R-1. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioners.4. The main ground for the Tribunal to grant occupancy rights in favour of R-1, though the father of petitioners-1 and 2 and R-1 was admittedly the tenant of thos...
Channamallikarjuna Shivacharya Guru Pawadayya Swami Hiremath Vs. R.S. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR678; 1996(1)KarLJ352
Eswara Prasad, J.1. The Public Trust known as 'Hiremati of Nagthan' which was registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ('the Act' for short) earlier had Sri Channamallikarjuna Shivacharya Guru Pawadayya Swami Hiremath as its Sole Trustee. He fell seriously ill and died on 21.5.1979 after executing a Vyavastha Patra (Settlement Deed) on 17.5.1979 naming 5 persons to be the managers of the Trust after his death. He authorised the said 5 persons to nominate the successor. Accordingly entries were made in the Register showing the names of the said 5 persons as the Managers of the Trust on 20.7.1979 by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Subsequently, four of them made a report intimating the Assistant Charity Commissioner that the first appellant herein was installed as the Matadhipathi on 30.7.1979 and requested the Assistant Charity Commissioner to make change report in the properties of the Trust.2. Public notice was issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner calling for obj...
Bapu Gouda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1117; ILR1995KAR3586; 1996(1)KarLJ111
ORDER1. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 149/95 registered in Shahapur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). They have filed this petition under Section 438 Cri P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Krishna Balothia, : 1995CriLJ2076 , has held that the offences which are enumerated under Section 3(1) of the Act arise out of the practice of 'Untouchability'. It is in this context that certain special provisions have been made in the Act, including Section 18. The exclusion of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Connection with offences under the said Act has to be viewed in the context of the prevailing social conditions which give rise to such offence, and the apprehension that perpetrators of such atrocities a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »