Karnataka Court April 1995 Judgments
Mrs. Sudha S. Alva Wife of K. Sadashiva Alva and Others Vs. Mrs. Sanje ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant5; ILR1995KAR1302; 1995(4)KarLJ19
1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court by which the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit has been reversed and consequently the same is decreed granting the relief of permanent injuction as claimed by the plaintiff.2. Plaintiffs filed a suit inter alia seeking a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to the road as shown in the sketch appended to the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was a 6 feet wide path-way leading from Gurupura Kaikamba to the plaintiffs' house situate in Survey No. 32/19 of Kandavara village running through various properties including Survey No. 129/2 belonging to the 1st defendant and Survey No. 129/3 belonging to the second defendant. His further case is that six years prior to the filing of the suit, the said path-way was widened by the Panchayat up to about two miles converting the same into a pucca road ...
Tag this Judgment!Desigowda and Others Etc. Vs. the Karnataka Industrial Area Developmen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant197; ILR1995KAR2250; 1995(5)KarLJ147
ORDER1. The petitioners in alt these petitions were owners of lands in Hootagalli village. The lands of the petitioners were acquired for development of an industrial area by the respondent Board (Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board) under preliminary notification dated 10-7-1980 and final notification dated 2-11-1981 issued under Ss.28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('Act' for short). In all these cases, the petitioners entered into agreements with the State Government agreeing to receive compensation ranging from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 18,750/- per acre, under S.29(2) of the said Act. The petitioners also executed Indemnity Bonds in favour of the Government and the respondent Board, indemnifying them against any claim that may be made by any third parties, as a consequence of the State Government and the respondent Board acting on the representations of the petitioners that they were the owners of the lands and consequently paying the compe...
Tag this Judgment!K. Srinivas and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)136; 1995(2)KarLJ283
ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short), with a prayer to quash the investigation launched by the Office-in-charge of the Police Station at Jalahalli in Deodurg Taluk of Raichur District, on the basis of the information lodged by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Lingsuuar Sub-Division, Lingsuuar, in Raichur District, on 6-4-1992 and to quash the First Information Report issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police on the basis of the case registered in Crime No. 14/1992 and submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deodurg ('the learned Magistrate'). 2. I have heard Sri S. Mahesh, learned counsel for petitioners 1 to 3, and Sri A. M. Farooq, the learned State Public Prosecutor. 3. I have perused the record in this petition, the record in Crime No. 14/1992, on the file of the learned Magistrate, and the record and proceedings in Writ Petition No. 17579/90 disposed of by the order dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Siddaiah Vs. Channappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1421; [1996]217ITR739(KAR); [1996]217ITR739(Karn); 1995(3)KarLJ501
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This second appeal had been filed by the second defendant. 2. The present suit had been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to declare the suit schedule properties as joint family properties of the plaintiff (first respondent herein) and to declare the sale deed dated February 11, 1965 (exhibit P-2), as benami and for a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. Defendant No. 1 is the wife of the plaintiff. She is the ostensible purchaser under the sale deed dated June 11, 1965 (exhibit P-2), which is the subject-matter of the suit. The suit properties had been subsequently sold by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 under a sale deed dated October 3, 1974 (exhibit P-6). Both the courts below on the basis of the evidence led in the case, have concurrently expressed that the suit properties had been acquired by the plaintiff out of the joint family ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivas Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1515
Navadgi, J1. This is a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, .1973 ('the Code' for short), with a prayer to quash the investigation launched by the Office in-charge of the Police Station at Jalahalli in Deodurg Taluk of Raichur District, on the basis of the information lodged by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Lingsugur Sub-Division, Lingsugur, in Raichur District, on 6.4.1992 and to quash the First Information Report issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police on the basis of the case registered in Crime No. 14/1992 and submitted to the jurisdiction Magistrate - Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deodurg ('the learned Magistrate').2. I have heard Sri S. Mahesh, learned Counsel for petitioners 1 to 3, and Sri A.M. Farooq, the learned State Public Prosecutor.3. I have perused the record in this Petition, the record in Crime No. 14/1992, on the file of the learned Magistrate, and the record and proceedings in Writ Petition No. 17579/90 disposed of by the Order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Vajra Shree Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1836; 1995(3)KarLJ602
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. As far as the field of Service Law is concerned, the Courts in this Country have for some time now being repeatedly deprecating sharp and unfair practices particularly when these relate to members of the teaching profession. The expectation was that with the passage of the time and the consistent disapproval in the strongest terms by the Higher Judiciary, that unethical and obnoxious practices would be discontinued. That unfortunately is not the case, and in the International Year dedicated to women, this High Court has come across one more instance where a lady teacher finds herself faced with an even more difficult problem insofar as, after having put in 6 years of service, when she requested for regularisation, her services were abruptly discontinued. What compounds the case is that when she approached this Court for redressal of her grievances, she has been faced with an abnormally high degree of resistance and the manner in which this litigation has been conduc...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraju Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2350
ORDERRaveendran, J.1. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of Vehicle bearing Registration No. TMN 4788. The said Vehicle was registered as a stage carriage on 16.04.1984 in Tamil Nadu with a seating capacity of 38 + 2. One T. Balakrishnan purchased the said Vehicle and converted it as an Omnibus on 11.06.1991 with the same seating capacity. The Petitioner purchased it from T. Balakrishnan. After the transfer of ownership in favour of Petitioner was duly recorded in the Registration Certificate, the Petitioner brought the Vehicle into the State of Karnataka by way of change of address. On 21.08.1991, Petitioner sought re-classification of Vehicle from Omnibus to Stage Carriage. At that stage the Respondent required the Petitioner to provide the minimum seating capacity as per Rule 151 (2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. Hence, Petitioner also sought permission to increase the seating capacity from 38 + 2 to 48 + 2. Respondent granted such permission. The Petitioner also pa...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Lakshman Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant179; ILR1995KAR1871; 1995(5)KarLJ137
ORDER1. By this petition, petitioner has prayed for grant and issuance of writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing order Annexure-F dated 14-7-1994, passed by Tahsildar-2nd respondent in Case No. RRT(1) CR 171/94-95, whereby the Tahsildar has reviewed and recalled his earlier order dated 23-6-1994, copy of which is Annexure-E to the writ petition. That by order dated 23-6-1994, Annexure-E to the petition, passed in Case No. RRT(1) CR 171 of 1994-95, the respondent No. 2 i.e., Tahsildar, ordered in maintaining of Khata of property in dispute in the name of the petitioner and his brothers. It is petitioner's case that the Tahsildar, by order dated 14-7-1994, reviewed and recalled the order dated 23-6-1994, taking the view that petitioners are not in possession. The petitioner's case is that Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to review his order dated 23-6-1994 firstly and secondly the order dated 14-7-1994 is illegal and has b...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Asha S. Kini Vs. Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of F ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(50)ECC106; ILR1995KAR1641
ORDER1. In this petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus the petitioner calls in question the validity of her husband's detention u/S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu Sri. Subash Chandra D. Kini, has been taken into preventive custody in pursuance of an order dated 19th of August, 1994 issued by Sri. K. L. Varma, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered u/S. 3(1) of the Act aforesaid, in the following circumstances : The Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Regional Unit, Mangalore, appear to have received reliable information that some goods meant to be exported by a Vessel by the name MC EL NIEL from New Mangalore Port on the Ist of February, 1994 would not conform to the declaration made in the Shipping Bills. Acting on this information the Officers of the D.R.I. boarded the vessel in question which was at that time ready to set sail after completion of all customs and port fo...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Vs. Rent and Accommodation Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1659; 1995(4)KarLJ15
ORDERShivaprakash, J.1. From the impugned order of the first respondent, it appears the concerned Revenue Inspector submitted a report to him stating that premises bearing No. 782, 16th Main, 20th Cross, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore has become vacant consequent upon the previous tenant vacating the premises, On the basis of the said report, the first respondent initiated suo motu proceedings, under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). At that stage, it seems the fourth respondent who is the owner of the premises reported the vacancy in terms of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act.2. The petitioner-tenant (who claims to be in actual occupation of the premises) entered appearance before the first respondent, and filed statement, stating that he has been in occupation of the premises and that he is the brother-in-law of the owner of the premises who was working in Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro at that point of time. It was also contended by him tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »