Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR365; 1997(4)KarLJ608
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The thirteen petitioners herein are among the eighteen candidates whose admissions in the respondent Oxford Dental College, Bangalore, has been refused to be approved by the respondent bangalore University for the academic year 1995-96 under its communication dated 16.8.1996 (Annexure 'R2' to the statement of objections filed by the respondent University) on the ground that the admission capacity of the college for the year in question was only of 40 seats, whereas the admissions made were of 58 candidates, i.e., 18 in excess of the admission capacity approved by the Central Government under Section 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948 (in short, the 'Dentist Act').2. The present Writ Petition was filed on 24.8.1996 for issuance of a direction to the respondent University to treat the petitioners as bona fide students of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (in short, 'BDS') course of the respondent college for the academic year 1995-96. Their further prayer was that the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ882
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, Mr. P. V. Singri, allowing the application filed by the accused under S. 210, Cr.P.C. and staying further investigation of the case referred to by the Court. Undisputed facts are these - That the petitioner has presented a private complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, alleging offences punishable under Ss. 406, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 477-A read with S. 34 of I.P.C. The complaint was made against its own employees including the accused. 2. The learned Magistrate has referred the said complaint for investigation acting under S. 156(3), Cr.P.C. The J.P. Nagar Police on receipt of this complaint, referred to by Court for investigation registered a criminal case in Crime No. 4/96 for the abovesaid offences and the FIR was duly submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 3. After the matter was investigated, the J.P. Nagar Po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ88
ORDER1. This is respondent-tenants' revision petition filed under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), questioning the correctness of the order dated 20th of January, 1997 made in H.R.C. No. 966 of 1992 by the Court of VI Additional Small Cause Judge at Bangalore, directing eviction of the petitioners herein under Section 21(1)(f) of the Act.2. The facts that may be relevant for disposal of the petition may be briefly stated as follows:(a) The respondents herein, who are the landlords of the premises bearing portion of No. 1, new No. 28/3, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore, which consists of a workshop with asbestos roofing sheds and other super structure situated thereon (hereinafter referred to as 'the petition schedule premises'), instituted proceedings against the petitioners for their eviction on two grounds -- firstly on the ground that therespondents reasonably and bona fide required the petition schedule premises for their use a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ49
1. This second appeal is filed by defendant 1 against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Haveri in R.A. No. 62 of 1992 dated 15-1-1994 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff and JMFC, Hangal in O.S. No. 96 of 1983 dated 31-10-1992 in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for redemption of the suit property.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents.3. For convenience sake, the appellant is referred to as defendant 1, respondent 1 as plaintiff 1, respondent 2 as defendant 2 and respondent 3 as plaintiff 3.4. The facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiffs instituted suit for redemption of mortgage and for recovery of possession of the property and for mesne profits alleging that they are the owners of the property TPC No. 3190 comprising of two properties as detailed in the plaint. As per the contentions and allegations in the plaint, the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and defendant 2, and in a partition, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant182; 1998(1)KarLJ320
ORDER1. Certain residents of Bellary Town have preferred the present petition whereby they have challenged the action on the part of the respondent-authorities in shifting the bus stand from the Royal Circle which was known as Adoni Bus Stand to a place near the Sangam Theatre. The authorities concerned had issued two notifications the first dated 3-4-1997 whereunder the bus stand was sought to be shifted and the second notification with which we are concerned here is the one dated 26-3-97 whereunder the authorities had directed that the buses shall no longer be parked at the Adoni Bus Stand i.e., the old bus stand. It is this notification that has been challenged. Mr. D'Sa, the learned Senior Government Counsel who appears for the respondents had brought it to the notice of the Court that the challenge is virtually academic and of no consequence unless the notification shifting the bus stand itself is challenged because once the earlier notification becomes final, there can be no ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR110; 1998(1)KarLJ420
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, Mr. P.V. Singri, allowing the application filed by the accused under Section 210, Criminal Procedure Code and staying further investigation of the case referred to by the Court. Undisputed facts are these --That the petitioner has presented a private complaint under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 477A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The complaint was made against its own employees including the accused.2. The learned Magistrate has referred the said complaint for investigation acting under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code. The J.P. Nagar Police on receipt of this complaint, referred to by Court for investigation, registered a criminal case in Crime No. 4 of 1996 for the above said offences and the FIR was duly submitted to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR672
T.N. vallinayagam, J.1. The L.Rs of the first plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the appellants. The suit for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit schedule properties and for injunction, was decreed by the trial Court. On appeal by the defendants, the decree was set aside by allowing the appeal and the suit was dismissed. Hence, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this second appeal.2. The facts relating to the second appeal are as follows:One Dasegowda had three sons by name Kempanna, Yelavaiah and Rangappa. The family tree of the said Dasegowda is appended below: Dase Gowda____________________________|___________________________| | |Kempanna Yelavaiah Rangappa| | |______|___________ | ______|______| | | | |Rangappa Gaviappa | Rangaiah Nanjappa@ G. Narasiah |Chikkarangappa |||Lakkamma(widow died in 1978|DaughterRangamma died in 1964Husband Huchaiah (died in 1973|____________________|______________________________Chikk- Lakkamma Nanjamma Dasegowda Hanumanthaiah- Chandm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1314
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1.The L.Rs of the first plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 to 6 are the appellants. The suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' title to the suit schedule properties and for injunction, was decreed by the Trial Court. On appeal by the defendants, the decree was set aside by allowing the appeal and the suit was dismissed. Hence, the plaintiff's are before this Court in this second appeal.2. The facts relating to the second appeal are as follows:One Dasegowda had three sons by name Kempanna, Yelavaiah and Rangappa. The family tree of the said Dasegowda is appended below: Dase Gowda | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Kerpanna Yelavaiah Rangappa ---------------------- | ------------------- | | | | | Rangappa Goviappa | Rangaiah Nanjappa | @ G. Narasiah | Chikka | rangappa | Lakkamma (widow died in 1978) Daughter Rangamma died in 1964 Husband Huchaiah (died in 1973) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1946
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner has sought writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7.8.1997, passed by Asst. in Commissioner in Case No. PTCL 30/92-93 and PTCL 10/96-97, as per Annexure 'F'. The petitioner has further sought the relief of prohibition or any other writ to prohibit respondent No. 1 from proceeding with Appeal No. SC/ST 22/97-98, whereby he has challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed under Section 5 of Act No. 2 of 79.2. The order at Annexure - F is the order of resumption of the land after having declared the sale deed dated 3.12.1990 to be null and void, as being in breach of the terms of Section 4 of the Act. By this sale deed the petitioner had purchased the granted land from the grantee who belongs to Scheduled Caste. In other word the grantee belong to Scheduled Caste. The land was granted in his favour some time in 1974 and as admitted by the petitioner, it was a grant for something less than the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J. 1. The question that falls for consideration in these petitions is as to, whether the Bangalore Development Authority, hereinafter called 'the BDA', has authority of law to impose and collect penalty to extend the time for construction of buildings in the sites allotted by BDA? and, if so, whether the imposition of penalty is in accordance with law?2. In view of the question of law and fact being similar in all these petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.3. All these petitioners except the petitioners in the first set, are the allottees of sites by Bangalore Development Authority on various dates, varying from October 10, 1986 to August 3, 1989. The petitioners in W.P.Nos. 3090-91/1987 are the purchasers of sites at the public auction conducted by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, in the year 1965 and 1968 respectively. The sites in question are situated either in Hennur-Banasawadi layout or Nagarabhavi IInd...
Tag this Judgment!