Karnataka Court February 1997 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.
B.R. Nagendra Guptha and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR2544; 1997(3)KarLJ260
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. I have heard the petitioners' learned advocate as also the learned Government Pleader. 2. The short question that has been canvassed by the petitioners1 learned advocate is that since the maximum punishment prescribed for the offences in question is one year, that the prosecution ought to have been instituted within an outer limit of one year from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. A perusal of the record will indicate that the two petitioners were called upon to furnish certain information on 26.8.82. Petitioner No. 1 sent a reply on 31.8.82 whereas Petitioner No. 2 replied on 28.8.82. The prosecution alleges that despite these replies, that they are liable to be prosecuted as the requisite information was not disclosed. Assuming that the prosecution is right with regard to the allegations, the petitioners' learned advocate submits that the legislature has prescribed the time limit within which prosecution should be instituted an...
Smt. Ansari Sakeenabi Vs. Maligi Moideensab and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Kant339; ILR1997KAR1909; 1997(3)KarLJ266
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 6-1-1993 in I.A. No. 16/1991 of the court below passed dismissing the petitioner's appeal and confirming the order of the learned Munsiff, Siruguppa dated 3-9-1991 which was passed by him dismissing the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C.2. The relevant facts leading to this revision are as follows :The suit in O.S. No. 143/1986 for recovery of possession of the suit house from petitioner's late husband Ansari Usman Saheb (defendant) was tiled by the respondent Malige Mohideen Sab (plaintiff) since deceased. That suit came to be decreed on 2-2-1989. Later the defendant died on 12-3-1989. Thereafter, the petitioner his wife, made the application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC before the trial Court to set aside the said decree stating that it was an ex parte decree passed against her husband who for good reasons was unable to attend the court on few hearing dates preceding the date of said decree since he died of cancer...
State of Karnataka Vs. C. Prakash
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)154; 1998CriLJ1673; I(1998)DMC13; 1997(4)KarLJ639
Saldanha, J.1. This is one more of the dowry death cases which has come up to this Court, the facts in this case being a little sadder than in some of the other cases. It is alleged that the accused who was a teacher was married to Nagarathnamma on 12-4-1993. Hardly 3 weeks later, i.e. on 7-5-93 Nagarathnamma, hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased' died under unnatural circumstances in so far as she met with her end due to strangulation. The prosecution alleged that principally because of the unfulfilled dowry demands, the accused/husband had strangulated the wife by using a nylon rope and that he thereby caused her death. The version put forward by the defence was that the wife had secured such a rope, that it was fastened to a rather in the roof of the house and that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. The accused contended that he had cut the rope and put the body on the floor. The prosecution had alleged that this was an arranged marriage and that in the cours...
Suguna D. Shenoy and Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ69
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. By a notification dated 30-1-1989, the Bangalore Development Authority issued an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of lands falling under Low Income Group under the Self-financing Scheme Rules, 1982. The costs of the flats situated in the ground floor was shown to be Rs. 1,35,000/-, in the first floor Rs. 1,32,000/-, and in the second floor Rs. 1,30,000/-. Appellants who belong to the Low Income Group submitted applications for allotment of flats and made necessary payments in terms of the conditions of the notification. All of them were intimated in the year 1990 to pay the balance amount within the time specified in Annexure-C. By individual endorsements issued on 5-9-1992 all the appellants were informed that the possession of the flats would be given within 7 days as is evident from Annexure-D, According to the appellants the condition of the flats was deplorable at the time of delivery of possession and they had to incur huge expenditure to make...
Grama Vikasa Vedike Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1881
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. This is a public interest petition filed by one Grama Vikasa Vedike, represented by its President. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has challenged several notifications issued by the State Government under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), for the purpose of construction of the Harinala Irrigation Project, in Bailhongal taluk, Belgaum District.2. The Government with a view to construct an Irrigation Project proposed to acquire certain lands for the benefit of the general public in exercise of the power of eminent domain after obtaining the technical opinion and the Report. It appears, in the year 1963 the Government initiated proceedings for acquisition for the purpose of the construction of the above said project. Ultimately, the same was dropped by the State Government and the reasons for the dropping of the said acquisition are not known. Again the State Government initiated the proceedings for acquisitio...
Mohammed Shukur Vs. Smt. Jayamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR979; 1997(2)KarLJ396
ORDERS. Venkataraman, J1. These revision petitions are filed by the tenant questioning the order of the Munsiff allowing an application filed by the respondents under Section 151 CPC to amend the cause title in the order by bringing the respondents as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner in H.R.C.19/85. That order of the Munsiff which was challenged by the petitioner before the District Judge has been confirmed by him.2. The undisputed facts giving rise to the application under Section 151 filed by the respondents are briefly as hereunder. The deceased Ramesh Kuberappa Pastay had filed a petition in H.R.C.19/ 85 seeking eviction of the petitioner on various grounds. The evidence of both parties was completed by December 1988 and the matter was at the stage of arguments. The original petitioner died on 27,5.89. The respondents filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC to bring them on record on 9.6.89 after serving a copy on the petitioner's advocate. That application w...
Dr. K.T. Shivaiah Vs. the Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ64
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. After having fought and lost his battle in the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, National Consumers' Disputes Redressal Commission, and the Supreme Court, the appellant herein filed a writ petition with prayer for quashing the resolution of the respondent 1 dated 23-3-1982 by which alleged marginal land was allotted in favour of the purchasers of sites bearing Nos. 670 and 671 with a further prayer to direct the respondent to take all appropriate action for marking-out Site No. 669 as per the sketch submitted by the appellant. The learned Single Judge considered all aspects of the matter and agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the writ petition vide the order impugned in this appeal. 2. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the appellant it is necessary to have a resume of the facts as detailed by him in his petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is s...
Dr. H.S. Hanumanthappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)KarLJ163
ORDERG.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. A large extent of land, including the following survey numbers, were notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, by the second respondent for the formation of Rajmahal Vilas II Stage Layout.i) Sy. No. 1/1 measuring 5 guntas and Sy. No. 1/2 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas; of Lottegolahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk;ii) Sy. No. 23, measuring 1 acre 10 guntas; of land situated at Poanapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk;iii) Sy. No. 112 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas and Sy. Nos. 110 and 111/1 measuring 13 guntas situated at Mattikere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk;2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 33360/96 (hereafter referred to as the owner) claims to be the owner of the aforesaid lands. After the issue of final notification, the owner presented Writ Petition No. 20377/89 questioning the validity of the acquisition. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the Learned Single ...
Sri N. Ramachandra Gowda and Another Vs. Union of India, Rep. by the S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Kant238; ILR1998KAR1704; 1997(4)KarLJ128
ORDER1. Robert Brucc attempted, it is said, seven times to succeed, but the 4th respondent achieved the goal at the second attempt itself.2. The controversy centres round the nomination to the Board of Trustees of the 2nd respondent Port. Under Section 3 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, thereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Central Government, the 1st respondent herein, constitutes a Board of Trustees of the Port which shall consist of persons 17 in number in the case of Port as in the nature of the 3rd respondent to represent various interests mentioned there in. The Central Government should be satisfied that said nominees would be capable of representing the interest they represent as referred to in Section 3(1) of the Act. Section 3(l)(c)(i)(1) refers to nominee's to represent the Labor employed in the Port. The proviso to the said section provides that while making the nomination to the said Board of Trustees to represent the Labor interest, the representatives of the Lab...
Shri Narayana Guru English Medium School, Alake, Kudroli, Mangalore Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)KarLJ312
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. Annexure-A order passed by the first respondent is impugned in this proceedings. The petitioner herein claims to have established and running an educational institution popularly known as Sri Narayana Guru English Medium School. The said establishment had established Nursery School in 1977 and Primary and High School thereafter. They are Sri Narayana Guru Nursery School, Sri Narayana Guru Primary and Higher Primary School. The case of the petitioner is that these are three separate, distinct entity with no functional integrality. According to them there is no inter-dependence between them. There is no inter-connection either financially or otherwise and all the appointments and other administrative affairs are done separately. It is also alleged that admission to respective schools are done independently on the basis of Transfer Certificate issued by Sri Narayana Guru Nursery School to the Primary School and to the High School as the case may be. It is there...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »