Karnataka Court March 1996 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.
N. Balakrishna Vs. Smt. Champa S. Nittoor and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: II(1997)DMC272; ILR1996KAR3427; 1996(7)KarLJ234
ORDERM.B. Vishwanath, J.1. Both Counsel present. Heard.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed that annexure-A should be quashed.3. Annexure-A is the order passed by the learned Family CourtJudge, Bangalore, dated 23.10.1992 awarding Rs. 25,000/- towardsthe travelling expenses to the present respondent by the petitioner.This order was passed in M.C.No. 221/1990 on his file.4. M.C.No. 221/1990 was filed by the husband-Balakrishna (present petitioner) against the present respondent Smt.Champa S. Nittoor for annulling the marriage.5. The learned Family Court Judge as has already been stated, awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards the travelling expenses payable by the husband to the wife.6. He passed the impugned order taking into consideration that the petitioner had come from America to participate in the reconciliation proceedings7. In paragraph 5 of his order (Annexure-A) the learned Family Court Judge has observed:'Therefore, it is obvious that the f...
K.N. Krishnappa Vs. T.R. Gopalkrishna Setty by L.Rs. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant152; ILR1996KAR2520; 1996(3)KarLJ703
1. The appellant was the 5th defendant in O.S. No. 22/1979 filed by the 1st respondent for declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and for delivery of possession and also for past mesne profits of Rs. 1080/- and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 30/ - per month from the date of suit till delivery of possession. The suit was contested by the appellant and the 4th defendant inter alia on the grounds that the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 47, C.P.C., since the decree-holder purchaser should have obtained delivery of possession on the execution side within the period of limitation and that the suit is not maintainable. They also took the plea that they perfected their title by adverse possession. 2. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff became the owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the purchase in the court auction sale in Execution Number6179/1956 and that the defendants are in wrongful possession of the same. It ha...
Secretary, Bangalore Turf Club and Others Vs. Kishan Srivastava and An ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant306; ILR1996KAR1905; 1996(2)KarLJ680
1. The respondents in R.F.A. No. 684 of 1995 is the father of respondent in R.F.A. No.685 of 1995. They have filed O.S. No. 415 of 1995 and O.S. No. 476 of 1995 respectively for a declaration that the order passed by the appellants 1 to 3 dated 8-1-1995 and confirmed by the order, dated 21-1-1995 by the members of the 4th respondent are illegal, void and without jurisdiction and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellants or any-body claiming under them giving effect to the orders and to grant such other reliefs.2. Since a common question of law is involved in both the appeals, the appeals are heard together and the following judgment is passed.3. The appellant No. 1 is a Secretary of Bangalore Turf Club, shortly BTC, and appellants 2 and 3 are the chairman andSenior stipendary Stewards of BTC respectively. Appellant No. 4 is the Appellate Board (Authority) comprises of one elected steward as Chairman and two stewards nominated by the Government of Karnataka in the rank of Ho...
Manjunatha Rao (by Lrs.) Vs. Land Tribunal, Bhadravathi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR100; 1997(2)KarLJ22
ORDERM.M. Mirdhe, J.1.This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting Form No. 7 filed by Manjunatha Rao, who is the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the records of the case.3. Manjunatha Rao - the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 filed Form No. 7 in respect of Sy.No.84 of Chandankere village, Holehonnur Hobli, Bhadravathi Taluk. In the first round, Form No. 7 filed by Manjunatha Rao came to be granted. Respondent No. 4 challenged that order in a Writ Petition and that petition was dismissed. He preferred a Writ Appeal. In the Writ Appeal, the Order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. After remand Manjunatha Rao died and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were came on record and thereafter the impugned order came to b...
Shri P. Manjunath Shenoy Vs. Smt. Vishalakshi Pai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2340; 1996(5)KarLJ499
ORDERM.M. Mirdhe, J.1. This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunals ejecting the Form No. 7 filed by him.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1(a) and also the learned Government Pleader and perused the records of the case.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is a chalageni tenant of the land in question which is Sy.No. 92/1A and that respondent No. 1 is the mulligan tenant and from respondent No. 1 he has taken thelease rights and has become the chalageni tenant. He filed Form No. 7. As his Form No. 7 was rejected by the Tribunal on earlier occasion, he preferred W.P.No. 11.3335/79 and this Court holding that the order challenged in this case was not preceded by a proper enquiry, set aside the order and remanded the case to the Tribunal for disposal of the applications of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 after holding common enquiry. In that order, this Court had al...
Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore Vs. M. Gautam Ma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-14-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3035; ILR1996KAR1233; 1996(2)KarLJ183
ORDER1. In the issue of the Indian Express daily dated 15-7-1995, an article appeared under the caption 'Legal Hurdles'. The relevant portions of the said article, as published, read as under :- 'Barely had the Bangalore City Corporation sent cheers among the citizens by launching an offensive against unscrupulous builders, the High Court has stayed demolition of illegal structures. Former Chief Justice of India M. N. Venkatachalaiah had once remarked on the functioning of the judiciary saying that one could even obtain a stay on an air place flying over Calcutta'. When Seshan used the same expression to voice his concern over the degeneration of the judiciary, the Supreme Court threatened to use its favourite weapon, contempt. Some of the recent Court pronouncements have prompted legal circles to harp on 'judicial discipline,'. The stay order issued by the Karnataka High Court on Sunday without as much as issuing a notice to the Corporation has raised many eyebrows, besides triggeri...
Smt. Jayashree J. Shenoy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR711
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this Petition, who claims to be the owner of the land measuring 25 Cents situated in Kodialbail village, together with a house bearing Door No. 2-3-138, has challenged the order dated 18th January, 1992, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B passed by the Standing Committee of the Mangalore City Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and also the covering letter dated 29th January, 1992, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C, issued by the 2nd respondent communicating the order Annexure-B dated 18th January, 1992.2. The case of the petitioner as set cut in this petition is as follows:3. The 3rd respondent is the tenant in occupation of the building bearing Door No. 2-3-134 under the petitioner, and the dispute between the petitioner and 3rd respondent pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for eviction of the 3rdrespondent has been pending. According to the petitioner, on the basis ...
M. Venkatesh and ors. Vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2477; 1996(6)KarLJ238
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar , J.1.01: W.P. 16942/881. The petitioner herein challenges the dismissal order passed by the management. The brief facts common in these cases are that the petitioner was working as a supervisor in the Management Company. It is alleged that he has long service with the company. While so he was charge-sheeted for committing theft and passing of watch parts in order to make wrongful gains. It is alleged that Annexure-C charge-sheet was issued in this behalf to him. A replywas given by the worker which according to the management was not satisfactory. Annexure-D is the copy of the reply. Thereafter an enquiry was held. Annexure-G is the copy of the enquiry notice. It is further alleged by the worker that the documents relied on against him were not supplied to him. Annexure-F and H are copies of the letters submitted by the worker in this behalf. But nevertheless the enquiry was completed finding him guilty. Annexure-K is the report of the enquiry. In terms of the fi...
Murugendra Shikshana Samstha Vs. Commr. for Public Instructions and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR436
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This petition was argued in detail and I have heard the learned advocates at considerable length. Basically, two points have emerged the first of them being that the petitioner-institution contends that under the agreement Exhibit-A, that there was a scheme for merging the petitioner's and the R-3 institutions and that according to them this merger had effectively taken place. They also contend that the various inspecting authorities had submitted their recommendations and further-more that the principal and the other staff members had also signed the agreement Exhibit-A signifying their consent to such merger. The grievance of the petitioner is that the R-1 has passed a short order wherein he has cryptically stated that such a merger is undesirable and, therefore, by implication has rejected the proposal. According to the petitioners the merger has taken effect and they also contend that they are virtually running the R-3 institution and that at this stage, it is n...
Ameerjan Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Mandya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1768; 1996(3)KarLJ186
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of omnibus bearing Registration No. CNN 6447. It was registered only for personal use. On 4.4.1989, the vehicle was checked by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles and a check report was issued with an allegation that the vehicle was found carrying 8+1 adult passengers for hire or reward. According to the petitioner subsequently he was served with a demand notice levying additional tax under Section 8B of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short) issued by the respondent Regional Transport Officer. According to him, the allegation levelled in the check report was palpably false.2. Section 8B of the Act reads as under:'8-B. Further additional Tax for misuse of motor vehicle.-When any motor vehicle in respect of which tax has been placed is misused or used not in accordance with the purpose for which the vehicle is registered or the permit is granted or is used in such manner as to cause the vehicle to become a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »