Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2755; 1998(4)KarLJ316
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for contesting respondent 3 and the learned Government Pleader who has been directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. Respondent 4 since deceased by his 5 L.Rs. Notices served on the L.Rs of respondent 4, but they are unrepresented. Respondent 5 has been served, but he is unrepresented.2. The learned Government Pleader shows the records received in this case.3. In this petition two orders passed on 23-7-1976 as per Annexure-G and H have been challenged.4. As per Annexure-G, the Land Tribunal, Chikkodi, granted occupancy rights to the extent of 1/4 share to respondent 3 Subbanna in S. No. 230 measuring 12 acres 3 guntas (1/4 share in 12 acres 3 guntas) situated in Nagaral village. We are not concerned with grant of occupancy rights in the other S. No. 231 measuring 10 acres 6 guntas.5. By another order dated 23-7-1976 (Annexure-H) the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the extent of 1/4 share in S. N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2220; 1998(4)KarLJ693
ORDER1. This second appeal raises an extremely interesting but equally important point of law which can very briefly be summarised in the following terms: 2. Where a contract executed by a party who claims to have done it under the influence of alcohol or more correctly, where a party sets up the defence that he is addicted to the consumption of alcohol whether it is a sufficient ground to avoid the contract having reregard to the principle embodied in Section 12 of the Contract Act. 3. Factually, the dispute is within a narrow compass. Insofar as the appellant, a one time Doctor who appears to have concentrated more on the consumption of alcohol than his medical practice contends that, he agreed to sell a small house property to the plaintiff by agreement dated 25-6-1984. The agreement is not registered and it is the plaintiffs case that the defendant used to borrow small amounts of money from him from time to time and that he had paid an advance to the defendant against the considera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR730; 1998(5)KarLJ62
ORDER1. Alleging corruption, favouritism, nepotism and mala fides against respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner herein has prayed for the issuance of appropriate writ or direction striking down the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) (Amendment) Rules, 1997 as being illegal and unconstitutional and for a direction to the respondent-State to enforce the 1989 amendment rules. It is further prayed that a direction be issued for appointing an authority such as C.B.I., to probe in detail to find out the total loss caused to the respondent-State by way of evasion of payment of excise duties, cesses, sales tax on the sale of 'seconds' in IMFL which were allegedly sold without payment of excise duty cesses and sales tax during the period from December 1985 when the Supreme Court is stated to have affirmed the 1989 Amended Rules, till date by non-implementation of the 1989 Rules. It is contended that the difference be directed to be recovered personally from respondents 3 and 4.T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ458
ORDER1. I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate as also the learned Government Pleader.2. Mr. Ramesh on behalf of the petitioner states that a clear reading of the intendment of the Legislature while promulgating the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 was in order to prescribe a bar to the transfer of lands granted to persons of this category to others who may either want to deprive them of their lands or who may want to deceive them into parting with their lands or who may want to exploit them by depriving them of their lands through any other unfair means. Learned Counsel submits that the scheme of the legislation is very clear insofar as it is intended to protect a particular social strata and he contends that if this be the objective, that it would not prohibit a transfer inter se within persons belonging to the SC/ST. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision reported in Lakshmamma v State of Karnat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2757; 1998(5)KarLJ36
ORDER1. A very important question that governs the life of the village folk comes up for consideration in this writ petition. The petitioners are agriculturists by profession and are the residents of Ramghatta Village. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus for declaration that Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 amended under Act 21 of 1991 as unconstitutional and for a writ of mandamus to the second respondent-Tahsildar, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District not to regularise the unauthorised encroachment of lands in favour of the respondents. 2. The specific case of the petitioners is that there are about 500 agricultural families, 1600 heads of cattle and one thousand sheep and goats in the said village. Having regard to the strength of the live stock in the village, the Government was pleased to reserve 17 acres 28 guntas of land in Sy. No. 28 and 13 acres 1 gunta of land in Sy. No. 20 of Ramaghatta Village for the purpose of grazing. These two Survey numbers are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR616; 1998(6)KarLJ400
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by defendants 2 to 5 assailing the order of the Court below granting permission to sue the defendants in representative capacity.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, declaring that the C.T.S. No. 3477 of Hubli is part of street or lane and also for permanent injunction against the defendants 2 to 5 not to proceed with the construction over C.T.S. Nos. 2616-B and 3477 as per Building Plan No. HDC/BB II/28/ARB/2B/PWD, dated 24-8-1995 and also for such other reliefs. Learned Counsel assailing the order of the Court below permitting the plaintiffs to sue the defendants in representative capacity has filed this revision.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that as per Order I, Rule 8 read with Order 7, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code of Karnataka Amendment, the Court before granting permission ought to have issued a notice to the defendants 2 to 5. It is secondly contended that who are the parties, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2162
ORDER1. Heard both sides. 2. By this petition the petitioner who is accused in Crime No. 191/94 of Bijapur Rural P.S. registered against him and four others for offences under Section 171(4) read with Section 109, I.P.C. seeks quashing of the investigation of the crime by the concerned police on the ground that the alleged offences are non-cognizable offences and, therefore, the police have no jurisdiction to investigate into the same. 3. On the first information of one Vijayakumar Patil received by the S.H.O. through the concerned Election Officer, the said Crime No. 191/94 was booked against petitioner and four others on 29-11-1994 at about 11.15 p.m. The place of incident is shown as at a distance of 5 Kms. from the said police station. Immediately after registration of the crime the S.H.O. (PSI) proceeded to the spot where co-accused Nos. 2 to 5 were present in an Ambassador car bearing No. MYB 27. Then they arrested by the PSI and the said car together with the cash, two note book...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant308; ILR1998KAR2182; 1998(6)KarLJ475
A.M. Farooq, J.1. This writ appeal had earlier come up for hearing before the Division Bench consisting of the Hon'ble C.J. and myself. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants cited two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Kalappa v Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, and submitted that in view of these judgments, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitionscannot be sustained. The Division Bench felt that the above cited judgments require reconsideration by a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Since the interpretation given in the aforesaid judgment apparently was found to be contrary to the statutory provisions under the Karnataka Irrigation Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the matter has now been placed before us.2. The appellants in this writ appeal are the petitioners who filed the writ petition. The petitioners sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the notifications dated 6-1-1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1951; 1998(5)KarLJ162
ORDER1. Petitioner is the third defendant in O.A. No. 182 of 1995 filed by the second respondent on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. Petitioner claims that he became aware of the said proceedings onlyduring June 1997 and immediately thereafter filed an application (I.A. No. I) on 10-7-1997 to recall the order placing him ex parte and seeking permission to contest the proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the said application on 7-8-1997 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. The case was adjourned on 3-9-1997 for payment of costs and for filing his statement (reply). As petitioner did not file his statement, the following order was made on 3-9-1997: 'D3 absent. Reply not filed. No representation for the defendants. Hence, place the file before Bench for further trial by 24-9-1997'.2. On 24-9-1997, there was no representation and A. Ws. 1 and 2 (Bank's witnesses), who were present for cross-examination were discharged, and the evidence of the applicant-Bank was closed a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1997]90CompCas455(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner is the third defendant in O. A. No. 182 of 1995 filed by the second respondent on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. The petitioner claims that he becameaware of the said proceedings only during June, 1997, and immediately thereafter filed an application (I. A. No. I) on July 10, 1997, to recall the order placing him ex parte and seeking permission to contest the proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the said application on August 7, 1997, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500. The case was adjourned on September 3, 1997, for payment of costs and for filing his statement (reply). As the petitioner did not file his statement, the following order was made on September 3, 1997 : 'D3 absent. Reply not filed. No representation for the defendants. Hence, place the file before Bench for further trial by September 24, 1997'.2. On September 24, 1997, there was no representation and A. Ws. 1 and 2 (bank's witnesses), who were present for cross-ex...
Tag this Judgment!