Karnataka Court January 2000 Judgments
A. Madhava Hegde Vs. Rajendra S. Revankar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant319; 2000(4)KarLJ364
ORDER1. Assailing the order dated 1-10-1999 of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada on LA. No. VII filed under Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC, the present civil revision petition is filed. LA. No. VII was filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 58 of 1998 under Order 14, Rule 2 of the CPC requesting the Trial Court to try the issue pertaining to Court fee and jurisdiction as preliminary issue. The Trial Court has dismissed the said application holding that the trial on issue regarding Court fee and jurisdiction is not a pure question of law but a mixed question of law and facts and therefore, the same cannot be tried as a preliminary issue and accordingly I.A. No. VII was dismissed.2. Hence, the present civil revision petition is filed.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contend that the order of the learned Trial Judge refusing to try the issue regarding Court fee as a preliminary issue is illegal and the same suffers from material irregularity. The further c...
Tag this Judgment!Vimal Appayya Markal Vs. the Land Tribunal, Belgaum and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1023; 2000(2)KarLJ426
ORDER1. One Bharma Markal claiming to be the tenant of Sy. Nos. 55:2, 55:4, 55:5, 55:7, 528:9 of Halaga Village filed Form 7 prescribed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for granting occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, Belgaum. In the meantime, the said Bharma Markal died. Therefore, his wife came on record as his legal representative. After considering the case, the Tribunal rejected the claim by its order dated 28-9-1981. As against that order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Authority') claiming occupancy rights on the ground that the deceased Bharma Markal had executed a Will in his favour bequeathing all the right, title and interest in the property in his favour. The Authority by its order dated 4-10-1988 held that the petitioner cannot maintain the appeal and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.2. The learned Couns...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Gurushanthappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)KarLJ37
1. This writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 arises from the judgment and order dated March 30th, 1992, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Rama Jois in Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority and Another v Shivanna and Others , whereby thelearned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following observations:(a) The writ petition is disposed of as unnecessary for the time being leaving liberty for the petitioner to state all facts which he has set out in the writ petition before the Land Acquisition Officer, in opposition to the objection to the acquisition to be filed by the two writ petitioners, namely, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 29726 of 1981 and 29355 of 1981, and in opposition to objection of others, who claim to have purchased the very lands from the previous owners; (b) That the Land Acquisition Officer and the Bangalore Development Authority had been directed to consider all the points to be raised by the petitioner along with the o...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Gopalaswamy Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas565(Kar); 2000(3)KarLJ1
A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. The appellant calls in question the validity and correctness of the order dated 17-6-1999 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.2. The brief facts of the case are:Petitioner-appellant was a member of the respondent 3-stock exchange. He was doing the business of the share broker in the name and style of M/s. Vimal and Company at No. 4, II Floor, Sujatha Complex, Bangalore. He was, admittedly, a defaulter. His membership card was auctioned to recover the dues from him. After adjusting the dues and other expenses the balance was refunded to the appellant. The appellant was aggrieved that the respondent 3 levied default fee at 10% as per Bye-law 337 of Bangalore Stock Exchange. Therefore, he filed writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for appellant and the respondents.4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying on the decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Girijamma and Others Vs. M/S. Kamala Engineering Works, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant239; ILR2000KAR1212; 2000(2)KarLJ580
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the papers.2. These two revisions HRRP Nos. 1814 of 1996 and 81 of 1997 arise out of the order dated 30th September, 1996 of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in HRC No. 10279 of 1991.Landlady (first petitioner) Girijamma instituted eviction proceedings under Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. This application was opposed by the respondent. Therefore, after contest, by order dated 30-9-1996, eviction under Section 21(1)(h) was granted and the respondent was directed to vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises within three months. Eviction under Section 21(1)(p) was refused.It is, therefore, the tenant has filed HRRP No. 1814 of 1996 challenging the eviction order under Section 21(1)(h) and the landlady HRRP No. 81 of 1997 challenging the order refusing to evict under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act. This common order dispose of both the revision ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Rita Menezes and Others Vs. the Mangalore Corporation, Mangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Kant285; ILR2000KAR1749; 2000(3)KarLJ338
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. In this petition filed in public interest the petitioners, claiming to be public spirited citizens, pray for a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the resolution bearing No. C5.MA.NA.PA-321, dated 20-5-1998 on the ground that it is illegal and opposed to public interest.2. The brief facts of the case are:Respondents 3 and 4 obtained licence for construction of apartments in Ward No. 104(4d) of Kadri, Mangalore vide licence dated 1-11-1993 and 27-9-1994, respectively, to construct apartments. It is contended by the petitioners that they put up additional floors in violation of the licence granted. At the instance of one Sri Melvyr Peris the respondent 1 issued notice dated 24-6-1997 to respondents 3 and 4 under Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. As the respondents 3 and 4 did not give any explanation, the notice issued earlier was confirmed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Nalinikant Vs. Ramacharya Burli (Deceased) by L.Rs and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-14-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1681; 2000(4)KarLJ314
ORDER1. In this revision under Section 115 of the CPC judgment-debtor No. 3 in Ex. P. 36 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bagalkot, has questioned the legality of the order dated 20-9-1999 directing the Senior A.D.L.R., Bagalkot to measure and handover possession of certain land admeasuring 275' east-west and 634' north-south in T.P. No. 39 to the decree-holders.2. Both the learned Counsels for the revision petitioner and the caveator decree holders submitted that the matter may be taken for final disposal. Accordingly, they are heard in the matter.3. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this revision may be stated thus:Certain Venkobacharya Bin Anantacharya Burli is the grandfather of plaintiff/decree-holder and was the owner of a portion of open site in Sy. No. 39 of Bagalkot measuring 275' east-west and 634' north-south. He leased this open site in favour of Binny Company of Madras in the year 1889 for a period of 90 years, from 15-7-1889 to 15-...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Ravi Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1786; 2001(1)KarLJ162
ORDER1. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs viz.,(a) For issue of a writ of certiorari and for quashing the order dated 5-7-1993 passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, in Case No. HOA 46/87-88, insofar as it regnant half lands to respondents 4 to 6 and also for quashing the judgment dated 5-7-1996 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District. Bangalore, in M.A. No. 69 of 1993 (Annexure-C).(b) Direction to regrant of all the lands claimed by the petitioner by himself exclusively.(c) Grant any other orders deemed fit in the interest of justice.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are:That after the coming into force of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, an application under Section 6 of the said Act, was moved by respondents 4 to 6 claiming for the regrant of the resumed land alleging that the present respondents 4 to 6 i.e., the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Alias Krishnan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ2696; ILR2000KAR4845; 2001(1)KarLJ24
1. This appeal preferred by one Krishna alias Krishnan, a 23 year old resident of Ramachandrapura, Bangalore raises an interesting point of law which we shall summarise. In a case where the predominant allegation is one of rape of a young girl and the entire evidence is led to establish this charge and the prosecution also alleges that since the girl was found dead that the more serious offence of murder is also attributable to him, the question arises as to whether the heads of evidence which may establish the offence of rape conclusively could also be relied upon by the prosecution for purposes of establishing the more serious charge of murder. The deceased, Kumari Girija was only nine years old and was effectively a child. It is alleged that the accused who lived close by had misbehaved with this girl about a month prior to the incident and that he was admonished by the girl's grandmother Muniyamma. On 24-7-1994 Girija was watching T.V. in the company of P.W. 3-Sulochana at about 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!State by Sub-inspector of Police, Hosahalli Vs. Prakashaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ3738; 2000(3)KarLJ352
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Karnataka and the short point involved is the question as to whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused who was originally charged having committed an offence punishable under Section 326, Indian Penal Code for the lesser offence under Section 335, Indian Penal Code. The incident is within a narrow ambit insofar as it is alleged that on the afternoon of 21-6-1991, the complainant stopped a bullock cart in which the accusedwas taking some timber. According to the complainant, he found that one of the trees on his land had been cut and he maintains that he saw the timber from that tree being carried in the bullock cart which was why he insisted on stopping it and he told the accused that the timber must be brought to the complainant's house. Because of this, some altercations took place whereupon the accused gave two blows to the complainant on his arm as a result of which, he sustained a fracture. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »