Karnataka Court July 1996 Judgments

S. Jayarajan Vs. the Reserve Bank of India and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J1. The petitioner challenges an order of ad-interim suspension vide Annexure-F dated 15.3.1993 and also the charge sheet issued to the petitioner on 17.3.1993 vide Annexure-J on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 16, 21, 23, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner has joined the services of the respondent-Bank in the year 1971 initially as a Casual Labourer and his services were regularised. It seems, he belongs to the Schedule Caste community, and became the President of the Reserve Bank of India Class-IV Employees Union fighting against the action on the part of the Management in respect of conditions of service. The respondent-Bank placed him under suspension on 21.6.1979 without issuing any charge-memo or held any enquiry and his services were terminated by an order dated 9.2.1980 under Regulation 25(2)(b) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948. It seems a criminal case is pending against him under Section 307 IPC., ...

M.A. Kadakani Vs. M.T. Narvekar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1997Kant75; 1997(1)KarLJ217

ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J.1. This revision petition is referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court as the case involves a question of general importance namely, the interpretation of the proviso to Schedule 2 Article 11(1) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958. The teamed single Judge has made a reference on the assumption that the proceedings which gave rise to the revision is a probate application which became contested and in that context the question arises as to whether the proviso aforesaid mentioned applies to the case. But on going through the records and order of the Lower Court, we find that probate had already been granted on 15-4-81 and that the proceedings pending before the learned District Judge is the application for revocation of the probate under S. 263 of the Indian Succession Act.2. The facts of the case as revealed from the records is as follows :--The revision petitioner M. A. Kadakani hasfiled original P and SC proceedings...

D. Padma and ors. Vs. FaruddIn Khan and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. These two Civil Revision Petitions involve a very interesting point of law which can briefly be summarised in the following proposition:Whether the embargo contained in Section 60 of the C.P.C. with regard to immunity from attachment in respect of certain categories of property does hold good even when the judgment debtor has died and the legal heirs step into the picture. Conversely, whether the immunity from attachment that is conferred on these categories of property would fail to hold good when the property comes into the hands of the legal heirs.2. The facts of this case are briefly that the petitioners are the wife and minor children of the original defendant to a suit for recovery of money. The original plaintiff who is the respondent before me was a Money Lender and defendant, a Government Employee had incurred certain debts with him in respect of which the recovery proceedings had been instituted. The decree in question came to be passed against the de...

Smt. Kanthamma @ Achamma Vs. P.R. Venkataramanappa S/O Late Ramaswamy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1972

Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendant Appellant from the Judgment and Order dated 22nd July, 1993, delivered by (Divakar Rao), Additional Civil Judge and CJM at Kolar, District Kolar, in Regular Appeal No. 75/1993, whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court allowed the Plaintiff's First Appeal setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 19,1.1993, delivered by the Munsiff, Mulbagal, in O.S.No. 297/1992, dismissing the plaintiff's suit as barred by limitation, and remanding the case to the Trial Court for decision of the suit on merits according to law.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the Contract dated 13.3.1987, wherein the defendant had agreed to sell the land mentioned in the schedule for a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. According to the plaintiff's case, the agreement was to transfer a fragment of the holding. That there was bar against execution of sale deed in respect of fragment of the holding...

S. Rajendran and ors. Vs. Election Officer, President/Vice-president E ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3009; 1996(6)KarLJ759

P. Krishna Moorthy, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 27 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 rejecting the application to set aside the election of respondents 2 and 3 as President and Vice-President of the City Municipal Council, Robertsonpet, K.G.F.2. Under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, a distinction is made in regard to the election of a Councillor and that of President and Vice-President. Sections 21 to 27 deal with the election disputes in regard to the election of Councillors. The election dispute in regard to the election of Councillor has to be decided by the Election Tribunal. The Election Tribunal is defined in Section 2(9) of the Act and it says that Election Tribunal means any judicial officer appointed by notification by the Government to be Election Tribunal in respect of such area and where no such judicial officer is appointed, the Civil Judge having jurisdiction over the area within which the election has been or should have been held.3. Section 25 o...

Rukiya and Another Vs. Mohammed

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997CriLJ723; I(1997)DMC251; ILR1996KAR3254; 1996(7)KarLJ97

ORDER1. First petitioner is the divorced Muslim woman, respondent is her former husband, the second petitioner is their son and he lives with the first petitioner. Petitioners filed application under S. 125, Cr.P.C. in the Court of J.M.F.C., Puttur, District of Dakshina Kannada claiming maintenance. The learned Magistrate by the order impugned dated February 11, 1993 dismissed the application by the first petitioner for want of declaration in the prescribed form under S. 5 of the Act called 'The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986'. However allowed the application of the second petitioner granting Rs. 400/- a month for his maintenance. The learned counsel submits that he has challenged that portion of the order granting maintenance to the second petitioner in the Court of District and Sessions at Mangalore. 2. The relationship is not in dispute. It is also admitted that the respondent divorced the first petitioner on March 13, 1991 by sending the 'Talaknama' to her...

S. Chander Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR398; 1997(2)KarLJ43

ORDERJ. Eswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioner questions the demand made by the respondent in Annexure-A for payment of electric charges on the ground that he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2C of the Electricity Act, 1910 and he prays for quashing the demand in Annexure-A.2. It is case of the petitioner that he is the owner of property bearing No. 42 and 42/1, Dispensary Road, Bangalore which comprises two shops in the ground floor and residential portion above the shops which he purchased on 2.2.1987. On the date of the purchase, the building was old and dilapidated and there was no power supply to the shop bearing No. 42/1 which was under the occupation of tenant of the previous owner by name Krishnamurthy Varma. The petitioner got the said tenant evicted and took possession of the shop. Subsequently, the officials of the second respondenthave demanded payment of alleged dues pertaining to the Krishnamurthy Varma and threatened the petitioner that the electricity supply ...

Paramjit Singh Vs. the Chief Enforcement Officer (Enforcement Director ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1999]95CompCas423b(Kar); 1998CriLJ915; ILR1997KAR1410; 1998(2)KarLJ614

ORDER1. The petitioner-the Chairman of M/s. Manjog at 16/16-1, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore, challenges the search and seizure conducted by the 2nd respondent-Enforcement Officer on 20th September, 1990 at his residential premises as well as the office premises of M/s. Manjog, along with a team of Officers of the Enforcement Directorate, on the ground that there was non-compliance of Sections 37 and 38 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA' for short). He therefore prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to return all the seized documents and the computer machine and for a further direction to respondents not to proceed further on the basis of search and seizure proceedings at Annexure-A to F.2. The case of the petitioner is, that he is the Chairman of M/s. Manjog and that the 2nd respondent, without authority of law and without complying with the provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the FERA, illegally conducted the raid of his residential and offic...

Smt. Zehra Khanum Vs. J. Jayakumar and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR19; 1997(1)KarLJ89

ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1.This C.R.P is directed against an order passed by the Small Causes Court in Execution Petition No. 2025 of 1987, dated 28.10.1991. This is a hotly contested litigation but the few facts that are material for purposes of deciding the issue are only being recounted by me. The dispute centers around a small shed that stands in property bearing No. 60/A and in respect of which it is contended that one Nawab Jan was the tenant. It is also essential to record that the property on which this shed was standing is supposed to have originally belonged to one Abdul Rahman and that after his death, his widow and the sons had sold the property to one Jayakumar who is the present respondent-1 to this proceeding. Jayakumar had instituted H.R.C.No. 590/1987 for eviction of the tenant Nawab Jan who is the 2nd respondent to this petition and the sequence of events as far as that suit is concerned are of some consequence. The suit was filed on 2.3.87 and was returnable on 16.4.87....

Smt. Shivagangamma Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR1207; 1997(2)KarLJ36

ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. This Writ Petition calls in question order dated 11th of January 1991 issued by the Government rejecting the petitioner's request for payment of compensation on account of the premature termination of the lease held by her and seeks a mandamus directing the respondent to assess and pay the loss caused to her on that account.2. A quarrying lease in respect of 100 acres of river bed of the Krishna river underlying sy. No. 285 at Tangadagi village in Muddebihal Taluk of Bijapur District was granted to the petitioner for a period of 10 years commencing 29th of January, 1979 in terms of a lease agreement dated 11th May 1979. The lease in question was governed by the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1969 and entitled the petitioner to remove sand from the leased area during the contractual period.3. The petitioner's case in the present Writ Petition is that on account of the construction of what is called 'Upper Krishna Project', the entire leased area c...