Karnataka Court August 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.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Lucy Banilda Rebellow
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4206
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This is a tenant's revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.2. The respondent is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) in regard to the petition schedule premises in HRC No. 326/1984 filed by the landlord against the tenant under Clause (a) of the Proviso to Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) in the Court of the Learned Munsiff, Mangalore.3. The case of the landlord is briefly as follows: There was a term lease of the premises upto the end of 30.9.1983 in favour of the tenant. The tenant continued as a statutory tenant from 1.10.1983. The rent for the premises is Rs. 468.75 per month. The tenant did not pay the rents from 1.10.1983. Therefore a registered notice dated 5.8.1984 was sent by the landlord to the tenant demanding payment of rent. The said notice was sent to the registered office (Bombay), regional office (Bangalore) and the Sale Office (Mangalor...
B.M. Iqbal and anr. Vs. Inspector of Police, Cbi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)256; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)450; 1999CriLJ149
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the private complaint filed by the party alleging that the documents in question were forged and produced before the Court in evidence and such complaint was referred to the police for investigation and report by the Magistrate is liable to be quashed in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr. P.C.2. The facts leading to this petition are that the 2nd respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. alleging that the petitioners and two others have manipulated a receipt by lifting the revenue stamp from the receipt executed by this respondent for having received some amount on earlier occasion and created a receipt to appear that the respondent has received the balance amount in the case filed by him. In that case, the respondent had claimed that the cheque issued by the petitioner and others bounced and, therefore, the complaint was lodged under the N.I. Act. It is...
irappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ432
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders at Annexure-E dated 23-6-1982 passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights in an extent of 3 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 25 of K. Janipeth Village, on various grounds.2. 1 have perused the impugned order and prima facie satisfied that the same is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the land belongs to Government and as per Section 107 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the Government land. In the impugned order itself it is observed that the name of the Tahsildar is shown as Wahiwatdar. The Wahiwatkedar is in respect of Sri Panchalinga Temple and the land in question belongs to the said temple. The Tribunal has wrongly construed that since the name of the Tahsildar is entered in the R.T.G. the land belongs to Government. Annexure-C produced alon...
Smt. Yashodabai Vs. Smt. Gangawwa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3501; 1998(6)KarLJ330
1. In this revision petition, the order dated 27-2-1991 passed in H.R.C. Revision Petition No. 32 of 1590 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Belgaum, dismissing the revision petition has been challenged.2. In this revision petition, the petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the landlord.3. The landlord filed H.R.C. No. 262 of 1986 before the Principal Munsiff, Belgaum, praying that the tenant should be evicted.4. The H.R.C. Court passed an ex parte order of eviction on 21-3-1987. The landlord filed Execution Petition No. 191 of 1987 before the Principal Munsiff, Belgaum, to take possession of the property in pursuance of the exparte order of eviction.5. After coming to know of the ex parte order of eviction, the tenant (present revision petitioner) filed Miscellaneous Case No. 42 of 1987 before the Principal Munsiff, Belgaum, praying that the ex parte order should be set aside, which was dismissed on 23-2-1989.6. The tenant filed revision petition before the learned...
Smt. Sasalu Thimmakka (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ638
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders at Annexure-D, dated 3-12-1981 passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights in Sy. No. 32/2 of Mudugere Thimmayyana Palya village on various grounds. 2. I have perused the impugned order and prima facie satisfied that the same is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry holding that the land in question was mortgaged to Dodda Rangayya and the name of the petitioner does not appear in the Record of Rights immediately prior to 1-3-1974. The conclusions have been arrived at by the Tribunal only by perusing the records. The impugned order is also not a speaking order. Hence, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable. 3. Further, from the records it is seen that the parties have filed a compromise petition under Order 23, Rule 3 of the CPC in C.P. No. 10205 of 1991. No order has been passed on ...
Kittanna Rai (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. Sheena Poojary and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1249; 2000(1)KarLJ341
ORDER1. This revision by the owner of the lands in question is directed against the order dated 28-10-1987 of the Land Tribunal, Bantwal made in case No. TNC:6137:74-75 and the order dated 7-10-1988 of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority passed in appeal No. LRA:T:332 of 1987 BTL granting occupancy rights with respect to the said lands in favour of the respondent 1-Sheena Poojary.2. Certain undisputed facts are that, respondent 1 filed his application in Form No. 7 under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the 'Act', for short) for grant of occupancy right in respect of 1 acre 30 cents in S. No. 130/3; 24 cents in Sy. No. 130/2; 70 cents in Sy. No. 130/3; and 15 cents in Sy. No. 130/4, all situated in Poonacha villageof Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District claiming to be the tenant thereof under petitioner and one Narayana Adyanthar. His case in his application was that he was tenant of 1 acre 30 cents in Sy. No. 130/3 under its owner Narayana Adyanthar, and that ...
T.T. Narayana and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ335
ORDER1. These civil petitions are directed against a final judgment and order in W.P. Nos. 23113 of 1996 and 23114 of 1996 delivered by me on 10-6-1998. There is a class of litigants who are assisted by professionals who subscribe to such mischief, who, after a final order is passed change the lawyer and file review petitions, recalling petitions and another class of petitions filed under the heading of 'for being spoken to'. This a only a ruse to engage another lawyer and reargue the case that has been finally disposed off. This has become almost a regular practice in certain quarters and it is necessary that this Court puts a stop to these malpractices. I do concede that there is a small category of cases where a review application may be maintainable and the law is very well-defined insofar as if material of crucial importance has escaped the attention of the Court for whatever reason and if an important aspect of fact or law that would alter the decision in the case has escaped the...
Alban D'Souza Vs. the Land Tribunal, Udupi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR243; 1999(1)KarLJ209
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner, claiming to be a Mulgeni tenant of the land bearing Sy. No. 66/1A and 66/1B of Mudanidambur Village, has challenged the impugned order of the Land Tribunal dated 9-6-1991 vide Annexure-A by which the mother of respondents 2 to 5 has been registered as occupant of 76 cents in Sy. No. 66/1A. The impugned order has been questioned on various grounds.2. Respondents 2 to 5 have strongly opposed the petition. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the facts and the contentions urged need not be traversed since the petition can be decided with reference to the admitted facts just by meeting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.3. The 7th respondent is the owner of the lands in question. She has not challenged the impugned order granting occupancy rights. Even though the petitioner claims to be a Mulgeni tenant, he has not filed application seeking conferment of occupancy rights. Hence, the petition...
B. Siddaramappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ125
ORDER1. Heard the argument of learned Counsel on both sides.2. Certain undisputed facts are that an extent of 3 acres of agricultural land in old Sy. No. 22 (New Survey No. 104) of Doddaboki Kere Village, Tarikere Taluk of Chickmagalur District belonging to Government was granted free of cost to the late father of respondent 4-Chowdaiah on 22-12-1954 and the Saguvelli chit issued on 10-1-1955 with respect thereto was issued to him incorporating the condition that the granted land shall not be alienated by him for a period of 10 years. It is not in dispute that the grantee was a member of Scheduled Caste. Out of the said 3 acres of land, 2 acres 24 guntas thereof was sold by the grantee to the petitioner on 5-4-1971 under a registered sale deed. Since then, the latter is in possession and enjoyment thereof.3. On coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short), respondent 4 made an applica...
The Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum Sub-division, Belgaum Vs. Rao Sahe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ672
ORDER1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the judgment and order dated 11-6-1993 passed by Sri C.G. Himgund, Principal Civil Judge, Chikodi, dismissing the application for review filed by the present revision petitioner before the learned Civil Judge under Order 47(1) read with Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC.2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that, in Land Acquisition Case No. 57 of 1980 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, the award was given on 8-3-1983 by the reference Court i.e., the Principal Civil Judge. The claimant-respondent moved an application under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC to amend the decree in view of the of amendment of the provisions of Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act by the [Karnataka Amendment Act No. 69 of 1984] and prayed for enhancement of the compensation in view of the amendment by [Act No. 69 of 1984]. The Court below considered that application and by its orderdated 24-8-1991 allowed the Miscell...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »