Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ124
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the order dated 5-3-1997 passed by the Court of the VII Additional C.M.M. Bangalore, in Crime No. 55 of 1997 issuing non-bailable warrant, against this petitioner. Notice of this petition is served on the learned State Public Prosecutor.2. Heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323 and 506, IPC. All these offences are bailable. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate was pleased to release them on bail accepting cash surety offered by the accused persons. He has not imposed any conditions nor has he given any date for the accused to appear before the Court. The charge-sheet has not yet been filed. But it appears that the learned Magistrate has taken up the case on 5-3-1997 and directed to issue non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. The said order is questioned in this petition.3. The learned Counsel for the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2281; 1998(2)KarLJ194
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th June, 1992, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, dismissing the petitioner's appeal and affirming the order dated 17-5-1985, passed by the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings under Section 5 of Act 2 of 1979, as well as order dated 20th August, 1984, that was originally passed in the earlier proceedings.2. Facts of the case in the nutshell are that the petitioner is a purchaser of granted land from the grantee. The land was granted in favour of Deyyu Mogera on 25-12-1937, under Depressed Class Assignment Rules. The land that had been granted had been 0.45 acre in Sy. No. 171/4 and the grantee had also been granted 0.10 acre in Sy. No. 171/15 of the same village. The alienation of the property that is 0.10 acre was made in favour of the petitioner by Sri Rama Mogera, son of the original grantee, to a person who did not belong to Scheduled Caste. The authorities allowed the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(2)KarLJ170
ORDER1. Heard the petitioner's Counsel as well as the Government Pleader-Smt. Shantha Kumari, appearing for respondents 1 to 3.In this present case, in spite of service of notice, respondents 5 and 6, have not put any appearance. Respondent 4, service of notice on him has been dispensed with, as the land which he had granted to the grantee, he had transferred it to respondents 5 and 6. Therefore, respondent 4's interest is represented by these respondents 5 and 6.2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that the land was granted to Eradimma Bhovi, son of Thimma Bhovi, in 1957. The land that was granted measured 2 acres of Sy. No. 15/11, vide the order dated 17-6-1957. According to the petitioner, that the grant of land was subject to non-alienation condition, that is, land should not be alienated in any manner to any person for a period of 15 years. The grantee prior to the expiry of 15 years, on 1-12-1968, transferred the land to one Nanjamma, that is, respondent 6 and said Nanjam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3089; 1998(1)KarLJ413
1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit for permanent injunction in Original Suit No. 24 of 1982 was decreed by the learned Munsiff Harapanahalli on 14-3-1983. On appeal in Regular Appeal No. 15 of 1983, the learned Civil Judge, Hospet confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 30-11-1985. Hence, the second appeal.2. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Badagere Veerappa who died on 9-11-1954. Badigera Veerappa was also known as Gedde Veerappa, in the village. The said Veerappa had a brother by name Badigera Rudrappa who died on 21-11-1934, leaving the first defendant and one Honnavva, being the daughter through his second wife Lakshmavva. The said Honnavva is now dead. The father of defendants 2 to 4, Mallajja and one Badigera Shankerappa are the sons of late Sirasavva who is the daughter of the first wife of Rudrappa and who pre-deceased her father. The first defendant's father Rudrappa executed a registered Will dated 19-11-1934, bequeathin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant177; ILR1997KAR2346
Acts/Rules/Orders:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 34, Rules 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11;Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 137;Constitution of India - Article 181Cases Referred:Ramaiah v. Veeraiah, ILR 1883 Kar. 114;Subramaniam Chettiar v. Muthaiah Pillai, AIR 1957 Mad. 189;Bhagabat Sit v. Balaram Sit, AIR 1963 Ori. 61;Gajanana Chintaman Deshpande v. Karnatak Glass Industries, 1971(1) Mys. L.J. 200;Venkatesh Virupax Deshpande v. Central Bank of India, 1991(3) Kar. L.J. 87, ILT 1992 Kar. 304;Sital Parshad and Another v. Kishori Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1236JUDGEMENT1. The plaintiff, decree-holder is the appellant in this second appeal: His application for drawing final decree in FDP 2 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Chikodi, was allowed by the Trial Court on 31-8-1984. On appeal in R.A. 104 of 1984, the learned Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi has allowed the appeal on 14-8-1986 and dismissed the application. The question of law that is framed in this second appeal is as follows:'Whether...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ532
Acts/Rules/Orders:City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 - Sections 29 and 43;Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Section 69;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 11 and 40;Allotment of Sites Rules - Rule 19;Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act;Karnataka Municipalities ActCases Referred:Pee Kay Constructions and Another v. K. Chandrashekhara Hegde and Others, 1988(3) Kar. L.J. 543, ILR 1989 Kar. 241;Sachidanand Pandey and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1109;B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1059;Dattatreya and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. Nos. 17289 and 17290 of 1987, DD: 8-7-1988JUDGEMENTS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The appellants in these appeals filed writ petitions seeking for a declaration that the plan issued by the first respondent to the respective respondents who are owners of sites in the 5th Main Road, Defence Colony, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, as illegal and void. Each of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2449
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the election of Smt. Raniyamma to the post of Adhyaksha of the Shimoga District Zilla Panchayat, Shimoga and for a writ of quo warranto restraining Smt. Raniyamma from functioning as Adhyaksha inasmuch as she has no qualification to hold that post.2. Shimoga Zilla-Panchayat has been constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). The said Panchayat consists of 41 members elected from different constituencies in Shimoga District. Out of 41 elected members, 8 members belong to Scheduled Caste and out of them 3 members were elected from the Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste women. Smt. Raniyamma is elected from the Constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste women.3. The Government in its notification dated 7-3-1997, reserved the post of Adhyaksha for Scheduled Castes and the post of Upadhyaksha for unreserved women. Thereafter the Divisional Commissioner convened th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2227
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. A play titled 'MAHACHAITRA' was published in the year 1986. The said book underwent three editions having been again published in 1991 and 1994. The Gulbarga University and the Kuvempu University prescribed the same as textbook for the I year B.A. The Sahithya Academy gave an award to the book in the year 1986. 2. It is contended by the appellants that the book contains scandalous and mischievous references to Basavanna --Founder of Veerashaiva system of religion and other sharanas, with a deliberate total distortion of historical facts so as to impeach his character. A write-up questioning whether 'Mahachaitra' can be a textbook was produced at Annexure-B, wherein it is set-out that the book contains -- (i) defamation of Basavanna by Jangamas; (ii) allegation of misappropriation of the treasury; (iii) Departure of Vishwaguru Basavanna; (iv) final salvation of Basavanna; (v) historical defects; (vi) role of Neelambika; (vii) Channabasavanna's character; (viii) role...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
A.M. Farooq, J.1. These appeals are filed against the common order dated 22/2/1997 on IA I in OS 132/96 on the file of the learned First Addl. District Judge, Mysore. Both the plaintiff and defendant have filed appeals questioning the impugned order. 2. The plaintiff M/s. Deepam International, a registered partnership firm from Bangalore filed a suit before the trial Court at Mysore. The case of the plaintiff was that it is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in the sale of Silk sarees and textile piece goods under the brand name 'Deepam' and it has opened a show-room at M. G. Road, Bangalore and carrying on its business since 1981. It was stated that its trading style Deepam has become popular all over India and the plaintiff has been receiving orders from All over India for supply of silk sarees and textile materials. Due to intrinsic quality and reputation built over the number of years, silk sarees and textile pieces sold by it under their brand name Deepam have beco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(3)KarLJ249
1. These appeals are filed against the common order dated 22-2-1997 on IA I in O.S. No. 132 of 1996 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Mysore. Both the plaintiff and defendant have filed appeals questioning the impugned order.2. The plaintiff-M/s. Deepam Silk International, a registered partnership firm from Bangalore filed a suit before the Trial Court at Mysore. The case of the plaintiff was that it is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in the sale of silk sarees and textile piece goods under the brand name 'Deepam' and it has opened a showroom at M.G. Road, Bangalore and carrying on its business since 1981. It was stated that its trading style Deepam has become popular all over India and the plaintiff has been receiving orders from all over India for supply of silk sarees and textile materials. Due to intrinsic quality and reputation built over the number of years, silk sarees and textile pieces sold by it under their brand name Deepam have b...
Tag this Judgment!