Karnataka Court July 1998 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.
C. Ramappa Vs. B. Bolegouda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4019; 1998(6)KarLJ576
ORDER1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner calls in question the legality and the correctness of the order of the third respondent-the Munsiff and JMFC, K.R. Pet, Mandya district dated 21-12-1996 in Election Petition No. 8 of 1994. Annexure-A is the copy of the said order.2. Briefly stated the facts are:Petitioner C. Ramappa and first respondent-B. Bolegowda were elected to Bookinakere Grama Panchayat, K.R. Pet Taluk, Mandya district in the election held in the month of December 1993. It is undisputed that the petitioner was elected from the Modur-1 General Constituency and the first respondent from Bookinakere-3 Constituency reserved for Backward Class. The second respondent called for a meeting on 18-3-1994 for the election of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Bookinakere Grama Panchayat. It is also undisputed that the office of Adhyaksha was reserved for Backward Class and the office of Upadhyaksha for general-women. In the meeti...
The Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum Sub-division, Belgaum Vs. Ningappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ134
ORDER1. Heard the learned Government Pleader Sri M.H. Ibrahim.2. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the judgment and order dated 23-9-1993 passed by Sri C.G. Hungund, Principal Civil Judge, Chikodi rejecting the application moved by the Assistant Commissioner L.A. under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC for the review of judgment and award/decree dated 27-6-1991 in LAC No. 110 of 1988. The review petitioner (SLAO) sought an order to disallow the enhanced interest @ 9% for one year and 15% for subsequent years from the date of decree in LAC under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that the learned Civil Court committed jurisdictional error in rejecting the application under Order 47 of the Code by erroneously taking the view that 'excess amount' meant enhanced compensation and by opining that the interest at the rate of 9% and 15% was payable on the entire enhanced amount of compensat...
Sakamma Vs. Pavadi Gowda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ650
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 7th of March, 1995 in O.S. No. 183 of 1987 holding that Ex. P. 1 in O.S. No. 324 of 1987 was inadmissible in evidence not being fully stamped and was also barred by Section 17 of the Registration Act.2. The Trial Court mainly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Javerchand v Pukhraj Surana and Ettuthara Worrier v C. Kochunarayanan Menon .3. The Trial Court repelled the contention of the revision petitioner herein that the document Ex. P. 1 in O.S. No. 324 of 1987 had been admitted in evidence and therefore it waa not open to the plaintiff in suit to challenge its admissibility. Javer Chand's case, supra, related to admissibility of a Hundi, deficit stamping of it could not be validated by payment of duty and penalty; whereas in this case, the document is alleged to be an agreement to sell. Ex. P. 1 in O.S. No. 324 of 1987 was characterised as an agreement to sell. Whether it is an outright sale deed or an agreement t...
Murgesh and Others Vs. Narayansa Parashuramsa Magaji and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ542
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner. This revision arises from the order dated 9-12-1993, passed in Original Suit No. 92 of 1992, rejecting the application made by the defendant namely I.A. No. 20. The defendant in this case has sought the permission to produce additional documentary evidence and it was averred in the application that due to inadvertence and mistake the said documents could not be filed at the earlier stage, so he may be allowed to file it, as the documents are required for the decision of the case. 2. The Trial Court rejected the application taking the view that the stage of framing issues has finished. The evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses has already been recorded and defendants evidence is to reopen. But if the documents are allowed to be filed automatically, plaintiff will not have opportunity to meet those documents. He further found that the defendant 1 has not assigned or stated or disclosed any good or sufficient cause for not pro...
Sakamma Vs. Pavadi Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3842
ORDERS.R.VenkateshaMurthy, J.1. revision is directed against the order dated 7th of March, 1995 in O.S.No. 183 of 1987 holding that Ex.P.1 in O.S.No. 324 of 987 was inadmissible in evidence not being fully stamped and was also barred by Section 17 of the Registration Act.2. The Trial Court mainly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in JAVERCHAND v. PUKHRAJ SURANA, AIR 1961 SC 1655 and ETTUTHARA WARIOR v. C. KOCHUNARAYANAN MENON., AIR 1962 SC 7363. The Trial Court repelled the contention of the revision petitioners herein that the document Ex.P.1 in O.S.No. 324 of 1987 had been admitted in evidence and therefore it was not open to the plaintiff in suit to challenge its admissibility. Javerchand's case referred to above related to admissibility of a Hundi, deficit stamping of it could not be validated by payment of duty and penalty; where as in this case, the document is alleged to be an agreement to sell. Ex.P.1 in O.S.324 of 1987 was characterised as an agreement to sell. Whe...
State Through Jagajevanramnagar Police, Bangalore Vs. Firoz @ Jaggur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)144; 1997(3)KarLJ308
ORDER1. From time to time, the Courts are required to undertake a purificatory exercise and on this occasion, we do it with a deep degree of distress. In the course of the last one year it has repeatedly come to the notice of this Court that the working of the Criminal Courts is being systematically sabotaged resulting in the systematic failure of prosecutions. Whereas, the rate of convictions in criminal trials of all categories varies between 54% and 72%, if one were to take a cross-section of the State averages, it is found that the rate of acquittals in this State is around 86% with a conviction average of hardly 14%. The failure rate of prosecutions is abnormally high and this has built up a level of confidence in the criminally minded elements of society that they can infringe the law almost with impunity because even if they are apprehended, the chances of being acquitted are almost certain. This Court has several times issued directions to the Judicial Officers presiding over t...
B.K. Krishna Murthy and Others Vs. G.P. Rao and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ384
ORDER1. Heard Sri Gangadhar R. Gurumath, learned Counsel for the revisionists-applicants and Sri P.C. Ajjappa holding brief for Sri Kaleemulla Shariff, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. This revision petition arises from the order of the execution Court namely Munsiff, Siruguppa, dismissing the revision petitioners objections under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC as not maintainable with the observations that in view of the order passed by his predecessor on 15-7-1992 on I.A. 2 and I.A. 3 which were for the impleadment of the claimants as parties to the petition rejected the application for impleadment. While passing the order on 15-7-1992, it had observed that the decree in suit No. 587 of 1989 having been passed, the question of filing objections does not arise until the decree passed in the suit is set aside. From the order dated 10-8-1993 which has been passed by the learned Munsiff, Siruguppa, rejecting the revision petitioners application under Order 21, Rule 58 it appears that...
M/S. Maruthy Enterprises, Bangalore Vs. the Corporation of City of Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ348
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The point of law requiring adjudication in this petition is stated to be covered by Single Bench judgments of this Court in M/s. Rajatha Enterprises v Commissioner, Corporation of City of Bangalore1 and J. Suresh v Corporation of City of Bangalore. Apparently agreeing with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Rai and Others v State of Punjab and Others , the law laid down by this Court in the earlier mentioned two judgments may not be correct, the learned Single Judge felt it proper to refer this matter to the Division Bench for authoritative pronouncement.2. In order to determine the plea of law it is necessary to have a resume of facts. The petitioner firm is stated to have taken the premises bearing Municipal Corporation No. 381/2 located at Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore on a long term lease of 40 years vide registered lease deed dated 27-3-1975. The old bu...
Thirumalegowda and Others Vs. State by Nelamangala Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)140; 1999CriLJ823; ILR1998KAR3183; 1998(5)KarLJ570
ORDER1. The brief facts of the case are the 1st petitioner is the father and petitioners 2 to 6 are his sons. One Mayanna of Binnimangala village had filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that on 23-5-1994 at about 7.00 p.m., himself, his mother, brothers and others went to the house of the petitioners and questioned the 1st petitioner Thirumale-gowda as to why his sons i.e., petitioners 2 to 6 quarrelled with one Billappa. At that time suddenly all the petitioners attacked the complainant and others with bats, chains, clubs and sickles and some of them received serious injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent-police registered a case in Criminal Case No. 353 of 1994 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code making these petitioners as accused. Subsequently, the petitioners 1, 2, 4 and 6 were granted anticipatory bail and petitioners 3 and 5 were released on regular bail. Th...
Lingegowda Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ440
ORDER1. This revision application under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the order dated 4-8-1994 passed by the learned Munsiff, Malavalli, rejecting the application, for amendment moved by the petitioner for the amendment of the plaint, i.e., I.A. 7 in Original Suit No. 468 of 1989. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and injunction with respect to the property in Sy. No. 5 measuring 20 guntas. Boundaries of the property has been described in the plaint, but there was some clerical mistake in the description of the eastern boundary which has been mentioned to be rest of the portion of Sy. No. 5, while according to the petitioner that was a mistake. Eastern boundary should have been Halla and land belonging to Siddiah and others. The Trial Court rejected the amendment on the ground that it was being made at a late stage when the evidence has been closed. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the amendment is necessary for identification and issues can be a...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »