Karnataka Court June 1998 Judgments
M.A. Hameed Vs. the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Mysore Division ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR725; 1998(6)KarLJ405
ORDER1. The only controversy which has been raised in the present petition is that the order on appeal under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 have been passed by a person who is, not authorised to hearthe appeal.2. Arguments of both the learned Counsels for the parties have been heard. Under Section 15 of the Act of 1957, appeal lies to the prescribed authority. Rule 31 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1957 provides that appeal will lie to the Deputy Commissioner for Transport if the original order is that of an officer other than the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner for Transport. The proviso provides that if the original order has been passed by the DeputyCommissioner for Transport himself in some other capacity, appeal against such original order shall lie, to the Commissioner. The term Deputy Commissioner for Transport under Rule 2(1)(bb) of the Rules, 1957 is as under:'Deputy Commissioner for Transport means any officer appointed by the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Alias Ningappa Vs. Smt. Shanthabai and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ30
ORDER1. This revision application arises from the order dated 7-2-1998 whereby the Trial Court has rejected the applicant's application under Order 13, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC. Trial Court has opined that the applicant has not been able to explain the delay and has not been able to give any satisfactory reason why he could not at stage Order 13, Rule 1 of the CPC produce the document. The plaintiff has come up in revision under Section 115 of the CPC.2. I have heard Sri S.B. Shahapur, learned Counsel for the petitioner.3. Learned Counsel for the. revisionist contended that the Court below illegally refused to admit the document and really failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested. Prima facie, argument does not appear to be of any substance. The Trial Court has rejected the application with the observation,'Plaintiff relied the same on this document, he ought to have file this document along with suit, suit is filed in the year 1994, but he has not fi...
Tag this Judgment!Annappa Vs. D.S. Sugandharaj and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2249; 1998(6)KarLJ171
ORDER1. The petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 969 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shimoga. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 1989. The petitioner sought for amendment of the plaint in LA. No. XVIII. The Trial Court dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that it was belated. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court in LA. No. XVIII, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this CRP.3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed in favour of Sugandaraj Shetty and Hanumappa is not binding upon the plaintiff and prayed for cancellation of the sale deeds and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. It was submitted that by mistake the kharab portion of 1 acre 8 guntas was not included in the prayer of the plaint and also in the schedule. The kharab portion of 1 acre 8 ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatagiriyappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ301
ORDER1. Each of the petitioners in these petitions, was granted land measuring 10 acres in Survey No. 106 of Keladhi Village, Sagar Taluk, in the year 1962 by the State Government.2. In these petitions, the petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order dated 25th of November, 1994, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-U, passed by the respondent.3. R. Gopal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of the prayer made in these petitions, made three submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the finding recorded by the respondent that the petitioners have not brought the land in question under cultivation even after the expiry of five years from the date of the grant, is totally erroneous in law and the said finding is not based on any evidence. Elaborating this submission, he submitted that the fact that the respondent did not take any action within a reasonable time after the expiry of five years from the date of the grant, is a clear indicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatagiriyappa Vs. the State of Karnataka Revenue Development
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4000
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Setty, J. 1. Each of the petitioners in these petitions, was granted land measuring 10 acres in Survey No. 106 of Keladhi Village, Sagar Taluk, in the year 1962 by the State Government.2. In these petitions, the petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order dated 25th of November 1994, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-U, passed by the respondent.3. R. Gopal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of the prayer made in these petitions, made three submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the finding recorded by the respondent that the petitioners have not brought the land in question under cultivation even after the expiry of five years from the date of the grant, is totally erroneous in law and the said finding is not based on any evidence. Elaborating this submission, he submitted that the fact that the respondent did not take any action within a reasonable time after the expiry of five years from the date of the gra...
Tag this Judgment!R. Balaram and Others Vs. K. Dwarkanath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ406
ORDER1. These revisions arise from the order passed by the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, rejecting the revisionist-applicant's application for appointment of a handwriting expert as Commissioner to examine certain documents for comparison of signatures. This application was moved in the respective original suits. The Trial Court dismissed the applications taking the view that the suit is of 1991. The application had been made after completion of plaintiffs evidence and defendant also having led his evidence. He has also observed that in both the applications as well as in the affidavit, it has not at all been whispered as to which documents in particular are to be referred. The Court has also found that so far as the agreement to execute the sale deed is concerned, signature is not denied, which are contained therein. The defendant's plea has been that plaintiff has not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. It rejected it on the ground that the prayer als...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Thibbegowda and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ438; ILR1998KAR3733; 1998(5)KarLJ587
ORDER1. Heard Sri S.P. Shankar.2. The first question which has to be satisfied by this Court is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 115 reads as under.-'Section 115. Revision.- The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a)to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c)to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit'. A reading of this section per se reveals that the revision lies from an order passed by the Civil Court subordinate to the High Court, from which no appeal lies to the Court, provided the order suffers from jurisdictional error. It further provides and ...
Tag this Judgment!Firozkhan and Others Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ609
ORDER1. The petitioners are Class-Ill employees of the respondent-Corporation which has been established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioners have come up before this Court for quashing of communication made to them whereunder they have been informed that since they do not possess the requisite minimum percentage of aggregate marks in the qualifying examination therefore their applications to take common aptitude test for Class-II post filed pursuant to the notification dated 4-3-1998 (Annexure-A) stands rejected.3. It appears that keeping in view the various demands raised by the employees of the Corporation a memorandum of understanding dated 10-5-1993 (Annexure-D) was entered into between the Corporation and its employees to which the State Government accorded its approval under its Order No. HTD 81 TRE 93, dated 10-9-1993. Clause 21(7) of the said memorandum provided for framing of in-service recruitm...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Hassan Fazal Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3165; 1998(6)KarLJ16
ORDER1. The petitioner, in this petition, claims to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of land measuring 2 acres in Survey No. 39 of Ibbalur village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District, havingpurchased the same by means of a registered sale deed dated 22nd of August, 1990 from the 4th respondent. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated 4th of February, 1994, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B, passed by the second respondent setting aside the order dated 10th of April, 1989 made in File No. ALN. SR (S) 374/88-89 by the first respondent according sanction for conversion of the aforesaid 2 acres of land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purposes. 3. Sri Sreedhar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order Annexure-B is totally illegal and suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record. According to the learned Counsel, though the second respondent m...
Tag this Judgment!V. Shafeeque Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ588
ORDER1. In this writ petition (PIL) the petitioner had been convicted and was undergoing sentence of life-imprisonment. The petitioner has since been released from the prison after completing his sentence.2. The petitioner has prayed that he and his co-prisoners, who fall within the following categories, should be directed to be released by means of an appropriate writ:(1) All convicted male prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life even who are governed under Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and who have completed 10 years of sentence. (2) All convicted female prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life, who have completed 8 years of sentence. (3) All convicted female prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life, who are aged 65 years and above and who have completed 8 years of sentence. (4) All convicted prisoners who are either blind or suffering from deadly diseases like cancer, AIDS, etc., and who have been recommended to be released on medical advice and who ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »