Karnataka Court January 1999 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.
Rame Gowda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1120; 1999(3)KarLJ5
1. In all there were seventeen accused. They were charged on various counts under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Out of the seventeen accused all were acquitted except A-2 and A-3. A-2 and A-3 each of them were found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months.2. The appellants-accused 2 and 3 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1995 against their conviction and sentence. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 542 of 1995 against A-2 and A-3 for acquitting them for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The State has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 1995 against those accused who were acquitted. Allthe appeals were heard together and a common order is passed since all the appeals arise out of the same occurrence that is alleged ...
Ms. Ameeta Patel Vs. the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Othe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Kant441; ILR1999KAR1219; 1999(3)KarLJ167
ORDER1. The petitioner in this petition has prayed for a direction, directing the respondents to restore the building to its original condition by effecting structural construction of shop bearing Nos. 9, 15 and 16 formed at basement of the building situate at No. 14, St. Marks Road, Bangalore and in the alternative has sought for a direction to pay money in the form of damages on the ground of deprivation of the petitioner's livelihood, estimating at Rs. 30,00,000/- and for other reliefs. 2. The petitioner after obtaining necessary licence from the 1st respondent-Corporation established a restaurant in shop bearing Nos. 9, 15 and 16 formed at basement of the building situated at No. 14, St. Marks Road, Bangalore after taking the said property on lease from the original owner. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has invested about Rs. 20,00,000/- for her restaurant business in the above said premises. The particulars of the investment are also furnished in the petitio...
M. Kumar Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Limited, Bangalore and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1715; 1999(5)KarLJ193
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions assailing the constitutional validity of Section 26(1)(c) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (in short, 'the KMC Act') and the action of the respondent organizations in refusing permission for contesting the election for Councillors of Municipal Corporation, Bangalore.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 43146 of 1995 is a workman employed in Bharat Earth Movers Limited, Bangalore Complex. Bharat Earth Movers is a Public Sector Establishment engaged in the manufacture of earth moving equipments and Railway Coaches. The shares of this Company are held in the name of the President of India and the same is 'State' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's application seeking permission to contest in the Bangalore City Corporation Elections came to be rejected.3. Petitioner Smt. C. Chandramma, in W.P. No. 28766 of 1996 is an employee working as Senior Office Assistant in M/s. Indian Telephone Indus...
Paul D'Silva and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4487; 1999(5)KarLJ355
ORDER1. The petitioners are the joint owners of land bearing Sy. No. 1/3 of Thavoor Village, to an extent measuring 22 acres and 45 cents. The said land according to the claim made by the petitioners is a cardamom estate.2. In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the deemed permission secured by the vendors of the land referred to above pursuant to the application filed by the vendors of the petitioners on 9th January, 1981 in Form No. 1 under Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Rules enures to the benefit of the petitioners and for a further direction to the respondents not to obstruct the felling of the trees from the said lands, and to issue necessary 'mafi' (transport) pass to enable the petitioners to transport the timber that they might fell from the land in question. They have also prayed for quashing of the endorsement dated 10th March, 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G passed by the 2nd respondent during the pendenc...
Sunil Raosaheb Patil Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ289
ORDER1. Sri S.S. Haveri, learned Counsel, is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of the Phramacy Council of India.2. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a direction to the respondent 2-Board of Examining Authority of the State of Karnataka as approved under Section 12(2) of the Phramacy Act, 1948 ('the Act', for short), to issue a certificate of Diploma in Phramacy to the petitioner, since pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court he has successfully completed Part I and Part II of the examination in the said course.3. From the statement of objections, filed on behalf of the Examining Authority, it remains an undisputed fact that the Chauson College of Pharmacy, Chikodi, in which the petitioner claims to have undertaken his studies, was an unrecognised institution since it has not been given approval by Pharmacy Council of India in terms of Section 12(1) of the said Act.4. The question is whether the petitioner claiming to be a student of unrecognised inst...
Rame Gowda and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)427; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)621; 1999CriLJ1759
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. In all there were seventeen accused. They were charged on various counts under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 326 and 302 read with Section 149, IPC. Out of the seventeen accused all were acquitted except A-2 and A-3. A-2 and A-3 each of them were found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo R. I. for six months.2. The appellants-accused Nos. 2 and 3 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 220/1995 against their conviction and sentence. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 542/1995 against A-2 and A-3 for acquitting them for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 324 read with 149, IPC. The State has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 512/1995 against those accused who were acquitted. All the appeals were heard together and a common order is passed since all the appeals arise out of the same occurrence that is alleged to have b...
B. Namadeva Baliga Vs. Dr. Damodara Nayak
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2223; 1999(3)KarLJ214
ORDER1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 115 of the CPC against the order dated 5-4-1997 passed in R (R) No. 35 of 1990 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Mangalore, by which the first revisional Court under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') has confirmed eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he has unlawfully sublet the petition premises and also on the ground that he has acquired alternative accommodation as envisaged under Section 21(1)(f) and (p) of the Act. 2. It is not at all in dispute that the petition premises was taken on lease by the petitioner tenant as evidenced by Ex. P. 1, being lease deed. The lower revisional Court on the basis of the ration card, Commissioner's report (Ex. C. 1) has found that the premises was subsequently put under exclusive possession of one Govardhan Baliga, brother of the petitioner-tenant. It has also been found as of fact that the petitioner-t...
V. Jayaram (Deceased) by L.Rs and Another Vs. A.M. Abdul Rahman (Decea ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ110
ORDER1. This petition arises under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 from the judgment and order dated 20th March, 1991 delivered by Sri K.G. Lakshmipathi, IV Additional Judge of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in House Rent Case No. 10842 of 1983 initiated and instituted under Section 21(f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short.2. The petitioners filed the petition under Section 21 of the Act for decree of possession of the premises in dispute by eviction of the tenant therefrom on the grounds mentioned in clauses (f) and (h) of the Act, namely illegal subletting of the premises or part of the premises and as well as the other ground, namely that premises in question was reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by them and the members of their family. The petitioners alleged and claimed themselves to be the owners of the premises bearing No. 5, Seppings Road, Bangalore and furthe...
C.S. Palani Swamy and Another Vs. the Vysya Bank Limited, Tiptur and A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas557(Kar); ILR1999KAR1649; 1999(3)KarLJ42
ORDER1. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for both sides.2. These two revisions have arisen from the common order of the Court below, dated 2-12-1996, made on I.As. 16 and 18 in Execution Case No. 37 of 1989 pending on its file.3. A few undisputed facts giving rise to these revisions are as stated under.-Respondent-Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'decree-holder') had obtained a mortgage decree in Original Suit No. 42 of 1987 against three defendants therein towards recovery of Rs. 11,30,481/- together with interest etc. The said decree was put to execution by the decree-holder in Execution Case No. 37 of 1989 in the Trial Court. In execution proceeding certain immoveable properties of judgment-debtors were brought to sale in Court auction held on 9-8-1991. At the said auction sale, petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 827 of 1997 purchased a house of the judgment-debtors for Rs. 4,55,000/-, and the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 828 of 1997 purchased two house sit...
Kanthilal Vs. Smt. Padma Maiya and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2114; 1999(3)KarLJ193
1. The auction-purchaser of the property concerned in execution in Execution Case No. 495 of 1985 on the file of the City Civil Court at Bangalore, is the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the allowing of I.A. 8 filed under Order 21, Rule 97 and Section 47 of the CPC and declaration that the sale in favour of the auction-purchaser held and confirmed, is declared to be null and void and not binding on the applicant third party purchaser and also the cancellation of the sale certificate issued in favour of the auction-purchaser by the Court.2. An interesting question has been raised in this appeal as to whether title goes to the Court auction-purchaser in execution sale or to a third party private purchaser, who during the pendency of the proceedings, purchased the property.3. The admitted facts are as follows: The third respondent herein, who is the decree-holder, filed O.S. No. 2048 of 1982 against the second respondent who is the judgment-debtor. The property involved in theapp...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »