Karnataka Court August 1998 Judgments
B. Ramachandra Vs. State by T. Narasipur Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ463
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the convict Ramachandra, now at Central Prison, Mysore having suffered a judgment and order of conviction and sentence for life imprisonment dated 31-10-1995 in S.C.No. 94/91 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore, for an offence under Section 302 of the IPC.2. Since the appeal herein is presented to this Court through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Mysore, by the convict now in jail, we had to appoint an Amicus Curiae to prosecute his appeal and therefore wo have appointed Sri A.S. Bellary, the learned Advocate in the panel of Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court. We have therefore heard Sri A.S. Bellary, the Amicus Curiae and further the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri N.B. Viswanath appearing for the respondent-State. Having secured the records of the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 94/91, we have also perused the said records.3. A brief narration of the case is necessary here and the same is as hereunder:...
Tag this Judgment!D. Hemachandra Sagar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ510
ORDER1. second time challenging the acquisition of certain lands by the Bangalore Development Authority, hereinafter called the 'BDA', for formation of Banashankari V Stage, Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar 8th Stage, Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar 9th Stage and Gnana Bharathi Layout.2. A preliminary notification dated December 22, 1988 was issued by the BDA under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, hereinafter called 'the BDA Act' and the same was published in the Gazette dated April 6, 1989. It was followed by the declaration as published in the Gazette dated May 9, 1994 under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act in respect of certain lands situated in Uttarahalli, Vaddarapalya, Vasantpura, Marasandra, Konanakunte, Doddakallasandra, Yelachenahalli, etc. for formation of Banashankari 5th Stage Layout. Similarly, a preliminary notification dated March 23, 1988 gazetted on June 9, 1988 was issued by the BDA in respect of certain lands situated in Kotthanur Village for formatio...
Tag this Judgment!Hanamantagouda (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Parasanagouda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ297
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the order dated 12th August, 1994 passed by the Prl. Munsiff, Hubli, in O.S. No. 448 of 1987 rejecting the I.A. No. 11 filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff-revision petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He has also prayed for a declaration that he is the exclusive owner of the properties in question, which was denied by the defendant. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff has not disclosed his source of title and as to how he acquired the suit properties. The plaintiff thereafter moved an application for amendment clarifying the sources of his title by the amendment application. He also sought for a decree of declaration, in addition to permanent injunction. The Trial Court held that the proposed amendment sought ...
Tag this Judgment!Ningappa (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Shivappa (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ316
1. The L.Rs of the original plaintiff Lingappa, in a suit for partition, claiming half a share, is the appellant herein. The suit was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, the second appeal.2. Claiming that one Kedari and his sons Bhima and Balu were the original owners of the suit property, it was alleged that all of them died in 1980 (sic), within a span of five days. Kedari's widow Siddalingawwa, survived representing that branch, and she took the plaintiff in adoption on 16-11-1937. Kedari and his brother Mahadu were members of the joint family and no partition took place between them. Mahadu was managing the family affairs and after him, his son Ningappa and after Ningappa's death, his younger brother Shivappa. There was a sham partition in 1941 without giving any share to Kedari's branch and it was therefore claimed that such partition was not binding on the plaintiff.3. The second defendant, natural father of the plaintiff, admitted the claim, while the other defendants, that is,...
Tag this Judgment!D. Hemachandra Sagar and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-31-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4172
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions have approached this Court for the 2nd time challenging the acquisition of certain lands by the Bangalore Development Authority, hereinafter called the 'BDA', for formation of Banashankari Vth Stage, Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar 8th Stage, Jayaprakash Narayana Nagar 9th Stage and Gnana Bharathi Layout.2. A preliminary notification dated December 22, 1988 was issued by the BDA under Section 17(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, hereinafter called 'the BDA Act' and the same was published in the gazette dated April 6, 1989. It was followed by the declaration as published in the Gazette dated May 9, 1994 under Section 19(1) of the BDA Act in respect of certain lands situated in Uttarahalli, Vaddarapalya, Vasantpura, Marasandra, Konanakunte, Doddakallasandra, Yeiachenahalli, etc. for formation of Banashankari 5th Stage Layout. Similarly, a preliminary notification dated March 23, 1988 gazetted on June 9, 1988 w...
Tag this Judgment!Devendrappa and Others Vs. Ramappa Sankappa Hubli
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ71
ORDER1. This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 29-6-1994 passed by the learned Munsiff, Ramdurg, allowing I.A. III moved by the plaintiff in Original Suit No, 234 of 1990. By the amendment, the plaintiff sought to remove a technical defect in the plaint i.e., lack of averment which is required to be made under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act read with explanation thereof namely there was no specific averment in expressed terms that the plaintiff is and has always been ready to perform his part of contract. This allegation being wanted and as it was not there in expressed terms, the plaintiff moved the application for amendment and the Court below after considering the matter, allowed the amendment. So defendants felt aggrieved and have come up in revision.2. It has been contended before me by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the Court below should not have allowed the amendment as on the date if it would have been filed in amended form,...
Tag this Judgment!Sayeed Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ272
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the term of office of President or Vice-President of the Municipal Council is 30 months from the date of then election to the said posts and for other reliefs.2. The petitioners in these petitions were elected as either President or Vice-President of their respective Municipalities in the vacancies caused during the currency of the term of the elected President or Vice-President of the said Municipalities. It is in their submission that though they were elected in the vacancies caused during the currency of the term of the offices of the President or Vice-President, they are entitled to continue in office for a period of 30 months from the date of their election. In support of this contention the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of M. Siddappa v State of Karnataka and Others .3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sayeed Akbar Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3519
Chandrashekaraiah, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the term of office of president or Vice President of the Municipal Council is 30 months from the date of their election to the said posts and for other reliefs.2. The petitioners in these petitions were elected as either President or Vice-president of their respective Municipalities in the vacancies caused during the currency of the term of the elected President or Vice President of the said Municipalities. It is in their submission that though they were elected in the vacancies caused during the currency of the term of the offices of the President or Vice-President, they are entitled to continue in office for a period of 30 months from the date of their election. In support of this contention the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of M. SIDDAPPA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., W.P. No. 33497/96 with Connected petitions.3. The learned Government...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Subba Reddy Vs. Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ175
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. In this petition filed in public interest prayer is made for issuance of the direction to the respondent not to close the alleged entrance by putting up compound wall and thereby obstructing the ingress and egress to the office of the Consumer Forum. It is further prayed that a direction be issued to the respondent to put up small gate to regulate the movement of visitors to its office. It is alleged that the office of respondent-Board is situated in Kempegowda Road, Bangalore where other offices like Karnataka Electricity Board and that of the Consumer Forum are also located. Towards the northern side of these buildings, City Civil Court Complex and Advocates Association are also located. In between these two premises, compound wall is built with two or three entrances meant for the respondent-Board and the Karnataka Electricity Board. The entrance to the respondent-Board is claimed to be very important because that has an access to the Consumer Forum office al...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Institute of Science Employees' Association, Bangalore Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-27-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3418; 1998(6)KarLJ364
1. The two employees' associations of the respondent-Indian Institute of Sciences (hereinafter, 'the Institute') have preferred these two writ petitions questioning the reasonableness and constitutional permissibility of the Resolution XII passed by the Governing Council of the Institute at its meeting held at 20-12-1996 by which retrospective amendments have been made to the 'Scheme for Career Advancement of the Employees of the Institute'. Both the associations feel aggrieved by the clauses which benefits the members of the other counterpart.2. The Institute was established in 1909 with two departments. Today, it has 43 departments/centers/units/labs covering a wide range of engineering and basic sciences. It has about 500 faculties, 1700 students and 1500 support staff. It has the largest computing facility for any academic institute in the country and has the best library in science andtechnology. It has acquired a place of pride in the national endeavours to progress through scien...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »