Karnataka Court January 2000 Judgments
Shankar and Another Vs. Madhukar Bandopant Kulkarni and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1019; 2000(2)KarLJ422
ORDER1. Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 397 of 1993, who have filed the said suit against respondents-defendants for the relief of specific performance.2. The plaintiffs' case is that they had been cultivating the agricultural lands belonging to the defendants and that the latter having entered into an agreement of sale of the said land dated 16-7-1984 for valuable consideration were not willing to execute the sale deed in their favour in terms thereof. During pendency of the suit, LA. No. 4 under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ('the Act' for short) was made by the plaintiffs to stay further proceedings in the suit as they had made an application to the concerned Deputy Commissioner on 15-12-1998 in view of the relevant amended provisions of the Act seeking grant of occupancy rights with respect to the suit land. The Court below has rejected that application of the petitioners on the ground that Section 133 of the Act will not be attracted in respect of an applica...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Eswara Rao Vs. Smt. Rabiyabi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant232; ILR2000KAR998; 2000(2)KarLJ568
ORDER1. This RSA is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-10-1997 in R.A. No. 23 of 1994 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Madikeri (henceforth referred to in brief as the 'First Appellate Court').In passing the same, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein.2. The brief facts are as follows:That respondents 1 and 2 herein had filed O.S. No. 42 of 1988, a suit for redemption, at the first instance before the Civil Judge, presently, the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) as against the appellant herein and that suit came to be decreed and the respondents 1 and 2 - plaintiffs were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within 3 months from the date of the decree and in terms of the decree, the sum in question was deposited in CMC No. 10 of 1989 on the file of the Civil Judge, Madikeri and upon that, a notice came to be issued to the respondent 1 on 27-7-1989.3. That the said suit was not at all contested by the appellant herein, inasmuch as, they...
Tag this Judgment!H.S. Devaraj and Others Vs. State Election Commissioner, Karnataka Sta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant311; ILR2000KAR1493; 2000(3)KarLJ229
ORDER1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioners have called in question the validity of an order made by the State Election Commissioner under Section 4 of the Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987 disqualifying the petitioners from the membership of the Zilla Panchayat, Mysore District on the ground of defection contrary to Section 3(1)(b) of the said Act.2. The complaint filed against the petitioners alleged that a meeting of the Mysore District Janata Dal was convened on 12th of December, 1998 at Mysore, in which apart from the Zilla Panchayat members of the Janata Dal, Sri Siddaramaiah, the then Deputy Chief Minister of the State, other Ministers, M.L.As., and M.L.Cs., also participated. The meeting was, according to the complaint, convened to nominate candidates for the post of President and Vice-President of the Zilla Panchayat for which elections were scheduled to be held on 14-12-1998. The complaint further stated that after discuss...
Tag this Judgment!Viswanath Kappathanavar and Another Vs. Channu Patil and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant247; ILR2000KAR1646; 2000(3)KarLJ56
ORDER1. By an order made by him under Section 4 of Karnataka Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1987, the State Election Commissioner has disqualified the petitioners from the membership of the Zilla Panchayat on the ground of defection contrary to Section 3 of the said Act. Aggrieved the petitioners have questioned the validity of that order in the present writ petitions.2. In the elections to the post of 'Adhyaksha' (President) and 'Upadhyaksha' (Vice-President) of the Zilla Panchayat, Gadag held on 25th of April, 1998 in which, the petitioners were elected as 'Adhyaksha' (President) and 'Upadhyaksha' (Vice-President). A complaint filed by respondent-Shri Channu Patil, more than two months after the election alleged that the petitioners were guilty of defection within the meaning of Section 3 of Act aforesaid and had thereby incurred a disqualification to continue as Members of the Panchayat. According to the complaint the petitioners had contested the election to the ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Kaiser-i-hind-depot (by Partners), Bangalore Vs. G.R. Kote
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1384; 2000(3)KarLJ303
ORDER1. This revision under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, dated 28-11-1996 in H.R.C. No. 2658 of 1987. Revision petitioner is the respondent-tenant and the respondent herein is the petitioner-landlord. Hereinafter, I shall refer to the parties as they are shown in the eviction petition for the purpose of convenience.On 29-3-1987 petitioner filed petition under Section 21(1)(h), (j) and (p) of the Act and subsequently on 28-1-1995 gave up the claim under Section 21(1)(j). Respondent opposed the application. Therefore, the parties went into trial, examined the witnesses and the Court by the impugned order refused eviction under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act, however allowed the application under Section 21(1)(h) and directed the tenant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises within six months from the date of the order. Tenant has now challenged the ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mahadevaiah Vs. the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant250; 2000(3)KarLJ385
ORDER1. A short but interesting question relating to the term of office admissible to the President and Vice-President of a Zilla Panchayat constituted under Section 302-A of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, falls for consideration in these petitions. The answer to the question turns on a true and correct interpretation of Sections 177 and 302-A of the Act. The controversy arises in the following circumstances:During the term of office of the Members of the concerned Zilla Panchayats of the existing Revenue Districts the State constituted seven new Districts of Haveri, Udupi, Chamrajnagar, Davangere, Koppal, Gadag and Bagalkot. New Zilla Panchayats for the newly created districts were established in terms of 302-A of the Act, and elections to the posts of President and Vice-President of the newly constituted Panchayats, held in April 1998. Twenty months later by a notification dated 3rd of December, 1999, the State Election Commission notified reservations for Scheduled Caste, Schedu...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Fulwanti Agarwal and Others Vs. Naresh Kumar and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3236; ILR2000KAR2034; 2000(4)KarLJ176
ORDER1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused in CC No. 8142 of 1999 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and they are seeking to challenge the registration of the case against them under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC by the order dated 2-3-1999. The respondent Naresh Kumar filed a private complaint on 18-1-1999 against the petitioners stating that the accused-petitioners herein may be got arrested by way of non-bailable warrant and secured before the Court and made to pay a lawful due of Rs. 10.5 lakhs to the complainant-respondent in the interest of justice and equity.2. Briefly stated, the allegations in the complaint are that the accused 1 to 5 are members/partners of the Fuel Corporation of India and amongst them, the 5th accused-Naval Kishore Agarwal negotiated with the petitioners in respect of the transaction in question. The respondent herein acted for and in favour of the Fuel Corporation of India for transportation of 17,596 metric ton...
Tag this Judgment!K. Manjunath Vs. Basavaiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: 2001ACJ38; AIR2000Kant358
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The second respondent in Motor Accident Claims case, being owner of the vehicle has preferred the above revision questioning the quantum awarded by the Claims Tribunal and also the dismissal of the case against the insurance company. The fact that an accident took place with reference to lorry bearing No. CTM-9673, though disputed, is found by the Tribunal as true. The evidence of PW 1 is that he was travelling in the vehicle though as gratuitous passenger; the story that he Jumped out without looking to the coming vehicle and sustained injuries was disbelieved by the trial Court. The trial Court also released the insurance company from the clutches of compensation on the ground that the policy does not cover extra passenger who travel in the vehicle. It is against that the second respondent has preferred the revision.2. Heard the respective counsel.3. Though preliminary objection was taken that, in the light of the dictum of this Court in ILR 1998 Kant 373...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Mazhar Alim
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-31-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ2534
1. We have heard the learned Addl. SPP on merits since the office objections have been complied with. The short submission canvassed by him on the point of law is that the accused was a public servant that he has admitted having taken away a sum of Rs. 10,500/- from the Post-Office and even though the amount has subsequently been made good by him, the learned counsel pointed to the Court that it is clearly a case of temporary misappropriation. His submission is that in a large number of cases, accused persons help themselves to public funds of which they were the custodians and when the shortage is detected they make good the amount and thereafter advance the plea that action should not be taken against them. There is a lot of substance in the submission canvassed by the learned counsel because what he points out is that in cases involving dishonesty such as misappropriation, breach of trust or even theft, that if the Court were to hold that because the property has been returned or re...
Tag this Judgment!Pan Office Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Blow Plast Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-28-2000
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas600(Kar)
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The defendant in a suit for recovery of money based on two invoices is questioning the decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff-company. The fact that the supply was made under two invoices by the plaintiff-company is not in dispute.On the other hand, in the written statement, the points that are raised are :(1) The suit is based on account and account copy is not produced ;(2) The fabricated frames were not up to expected standard. The defendant was prepared to return the copies as sub-standard goods ;(3) The suit was not verified by person authorised in law to verify and sign the pleadings ;(4) The question of payment of interest does not arise, as there is no question of payment of principal dues.The trial court considering the evidence adduced by PW-1 and the documents filed by the plaintiff exhibits P1 to P5 and also taking into consideration the evidence of DW-1 with no documents to file as exhibit came to the conclusion that the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »