Karnataka Court July 1995 Judgments
Samiulla Shariff Vs. Khizer Ahamed
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2460; 1995(3)KarLJ509
ORDERShivaprakash, J.1. The premises in question was originally occupied by late Gaffar Shariff as a tenant under the father of respondents 1 to 9. After the death of Gaffar Shariff the eviction petition was filed by the father of respondents 1 to 9 against respondents 10 and 11 i.e., widow of Gaffar Shariff and the first son of Gaffar Shariff. It appears, eviction was sought under Section 21 (1)(a) (f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). This was in the year 1982. After contest the petition was allowed on all counts.2. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, it seems, respondents 10 and 11 preferred revision under Section 50 of the Act to the District Court, Mysore. The first revisional Court confirmed the order of the trial Court both under Sections 21(1) (f) and (h) of the Act, but rejected the petition under Section 21(1)(a) on the ground that the statutory notice issued was defective. This Court in HRRP 32/94 preferred by Respondents 10 and 11...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2965; 1995(3)KarLJ512
ORDERVishwanath, J1. Heard both Counsel. In this Revision Petition the decree holder-Revision petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mandya in Ex.No. 46/93 on 16.4.94 recalling the order of attachment of the Consolidated Fund of India at Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore on the ground that his earlier order attaching the amount was irregular.2. It is clear from the material on record that on 6.8.93 the Civil Judge ordered attachment of the Consolidated Fund of India from the R.B.I., situate at Bangalore, to the extent of decree amount. In pursuance of this order of attachment, the R.B.I, has deposited the decree amount. On 16.4.84 the learned Civil Judge passed the impugned order holding that the amount called for from the R.B.I, by attaching the Consolidated Fund of India is not proper because the R.B.I. was not within his territorial jurisdiction. Hence he held that the attachment of the Fund of the R.B.I. at Bangalore was irregular and directed the amo...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Christine George Vs. Bank of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2963; 1995(5)KarLJ518
ORDERVishwanath, J1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner - J.Dr. The respondent decree holder though served - absent.2. In this Revision Petition, the Revision petitioner - J.Dr. has challenged the order passed by the Small Causes Judge, Mysore, on 13.1.1995 on I.A.II filed by the Revision petitioner - J.Dr. in Ex.No. 368/93.3. I.A.II was filed by the 3rd J.Dr. under Order 21 Rule 83 of C.P.C. praying that the sale of the property should be postponed to enable him to raise loan by mortgaging or by private sale of the portion of the mortgage property. He prayed that the sale be postponed by 3 months.4. The learned Civil Judge rejected I.A.II and came to the right conclusion on other grounds though he did not refer to the relevant provision in C.P.C.5. It is not disputed that the decree was a mortgage decree. Order 21 Rule 83(3) C.P.C. says that nothing in Order 21 Rule 83 shall be deemed to apply to a sale of property directed to be sold in execution of a decree for sa...
Tag this Judgment!Manmatha Rao Vs. M.K. Ahuja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2959; 1995(3)KarLJ518
ORDERVishwanath, J1. The learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner-2nd judgment debtor is present. The learned Counsel for respondent-decree holder is absent.2. In this Revision Petition the 2nd judgment debtor has challenged the order passed by the learned Small Cause Judge in Execution Case No. 2112/1995 on 10.4.1995 ordering attachment of salary of the petitioner-2nd judgment debtor.3. It is clear that the decree against the Revision petitioner was passed on 22.7.1991. The execution has been levied on 9.3.1995 i.e. more than two years after the decree was passed.4. Order 21 Rule 22(1) CPC. contemplates that a show cause notice should be issued where an application for execution is levied more than two years after the date of the decree. In the instant case the application for execution has been made more than two years after the decree.5. Order 21 Rule 22(3) CPC. (Karnataka Amendment) contemplates that, for reasons to be recorded in writing, if the Court considers that issue of no...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabi Poojarthi Vs. Shobha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2961; 1995(3)KarLJ514
ORDERVishwanath, J1. Heard both Counsel. It has been laid down by this Court in H.V. VENKATESH v. ELECTION OFFICER : ILR1994KAR2835 that the decision of the Munsiff in an Election Petition is revisable by this Court under Section 115 CP.C.2. In this Revision Petition the petitioner in the lower Court has challenged the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Belthangady on 4.1.1995 in Mis.No. 4/1994 filed under Sections 15 and 20 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, setting aside the election of the Revision petitioner and declaring the respondent as duly elected.3. It is clear from the material on record that the Revision petitioner had not filed objections to the Election Petition. The learned Munsiff proceeded to decide the Election Petition on merits even when the Revision petitioner had not filed objections and contested the matter, though represented by a Counsel.4. 'Before upsetting an election, the Court ought to be satisfied beyond all doubt that the election is void'. The l...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Mahesh Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ771; ILR1995KAR2752; 1995(5)KarLJ712
Mirdhe, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 12th August 1993 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge. Bangalore, convicting the appellants-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentencing to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each and in default R.I. for 4 months each and convicting for the offence punishable under Section 316 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentencing to R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rupees 2000/- in default R.I. for 3 months and also convicting for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and sentencing to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default R.I. for 2 months. 2. After preferring the appeal, appellant No. 2 died. One Putta Thayamma w/o appellant No. 2 filed I.A. No. IV under Section 394, Cr.P.C. to grant her leave to continue the appeal. The said I.A. was heard. The Addl. S.P.P. had no objection to allow the said I.A. and the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvathamma Vs. the Chief Secretary and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: II(1995)ACC665; 1996ACJ1091; 1995CriLJ4148; ILR1995KAR2424; 1995(6)KarLJ8
ORDER1. The petitioner is the wife of one Chennaiah, and it is not in dispute the said Chennaiah died in Subramanyanagar Police Station on 18-5-1988 while in police custody. The petitioner has two female minor children and one male minor child. According to the petitioner, her husband Chennaiah (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was arrested by the Subramanyanagar Police sometime prior to 18-5-1988 on the allegation that he committed theft of an autorickshaw in Cr.No. 160/88 and while he was in police custody he died on account of police atrocities on 18-5-1988. The petitioner having failed to get any relief from the respondents, has filed the above writ petition for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of rupees two lakhs and for providing a job to the petitioner as also for further direction to refer the matter to the C.B.I. for investigation. 2. As the matter was contested before this Court and it was alleged by the respondents that the de...
Tag this Judgment!M. Chandrashekaraiah Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)KarLJ644
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. This appeal represents an almost disastrous state of affairs and is illustrative of a situation in which even after running from pillar to post, the appellant finds himself in the wrong box. The facts themselves will demonstrate the manifest injustice that has been done to the appellant. The appellant is a police constable who is facing a prosecution on alleged charges punishable under Section 498-A, I.P.C. Simultaneously, a decision was taken by the authorities to institute departmental action against him in respect of the same set of facts, namely, the circumstances under which his late wife had died, the appellant approached the Administrative Tribunal with an application where under he had prayed for an order deferring the departmental proceedings until disposal of the criminal case. The contention taken up was that the charges are virtually overlapping, that the witnesses are the same and that if the appellant were to disclose his defense in the disciplinary p...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1241
Rajendra Babu, J.1. These two Petitions are filed challenging the legality of the acquisition of certain lands pursuant to Notification dated 16.7.1994 as at Annexure-A issued under Sections 4(1) and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act (LA Act) by respondent No. 2 and also the Notification issued under Section 6 of the L.A. Act on 22nd August, 1994 issued by the 1st respondent-State. It is also prayed that Section 17(1) of the L.A. Act be declared ultra vires and illegal. While Writ Petition No. 23530/1994 is filed by a Company, the other Petition is filed by one of the Directors thereof, who also own some part of the land.2. In Writ Petition No. 23530/1994, the lands are those comprised in Sy.Nos. 110/2, 115/2 and 115/3 which also bear House List No. 995/1 to 6 measuring in all about 1 acre situate in Pattandur Agrahara village of Bangalore South Taluk. The lands with which we are concerned in Writ Petition No. 25555/1994 are also situate in the same village comprised in Sy.Nos. 115/1, 110...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M.V. Shetty Memorial Trust Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2188; 1995(6)KarLJ37
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. Petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions are either registered Trusts or Societies who are running various Professional Colleges imparting courses in Bachelor of Nursing and/or Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to as 'the said courses'). All such Colleges are affiliated to one or the other Universities established under the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the University Act').2. Though in these Writ Petitions various reliefs have been claimed but the only one which now survives for consideration is Whether the students who had been admitted to the said courses for the academic year 1994-95 by the petitioners during the period 22.6.1994 to 2.8,1994 are eligible and entitled to take their examinations of the said courses held by the respective Universities?3. The State Legislature with an avowed object of eradicating various malpractices which had crept in the matter of admission to Professional Colleges and to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »