Karnataka Court March 2000 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.
D. Devaiah and Others Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District and Oth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3252; 2001(2)KarLJ178
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25-5-1998 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner directing the respondent-Tahsildar to grant 8 guntas of land in Sy. No. 211 of Hulivana Village, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District, in favour of the 4th respondent-Sri H.C. Chowdaiah.2. According to the petitioners, they are owners of various sub-divided extent of lands in Sy. Nos. 211 and 212 of Hulivana Village. Their grievance is that the disputed land being Halla Karab and which situates between Sy. Nos. 211 and 212, could not have been directed to be granted in favour of the 4th respondent by way of regularisation of his alleged unauthorised occupation under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (in short the 'Act') read with the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (in short the 'Rules').3. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy, we had called for the original records of the revenue authorities which have been made avai...
Smt. C. Rajeshwari Devi and Others Vs. Karegowda Alias Shanthaveera an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: II(2001)DMC158; ILR2000KAR4003; 2001(3)KarLJ74
ORDER1. The first petitioner who is the wife and the second and third petitioners who are the children of the first respondent are aggrieved of the order passed by the second respondent-Family Court in exercise of its power under the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 in the maintenance proceedings initiated by the petitioners and hence they have filed this writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the order urging various facts and legal contentions and prayed for enhancement of interim maintenance.2. The claim for maintenance in the original maintenance petition by the petitioners is Rs. 3,500/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- towards the litigation expenses. In the said proceedings, the Interim Application No. II was filed before the second respondent for grant of interim maintenance to the petitioners stating that the first respondent has driven the first petitioner out of his house and that she has been abandoned by her husband and that she has temporarily taken she...
Railwaymen's Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Bangalore Vs. the Es ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ204
ORDER1. The petitioner-Railwaymen's Credit Co-operative Society Limited was allotted a room in Railway Building No. 122 at Old Parcel Complex in Bangalore City under Annexure-B, dated 27-12-1988 by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railways, Bangalore. Thereafter, a notice as per Annexure-C under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued to show cause as to why it should not be evicted on the ground that it is in unauthorised occupation of the premises. It was followed by the impugned order at Annexure-E, dated 17-8-1995 cancelling the allotment of the premises. Challenging the notice and the order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash them and to direct the respondents not to take further action pursuant thereto.2. Statement of objections is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner-society was not duly constituted; that it was not recognised in terms of Paras 23 and 43 of Indi...
SavIn Kumar Shetty Vs. Vittal Anchan and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2150; 2000(4)KarLJ395
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Writ Appeal No. 8162 of 1999 (arising from an interim order passed in W.P. No. 43547 of 1999, dated 7-12-1999) and W.A. No. 1570 of 2000 (arising from the interim order passed in W.P. No. 3242 of 2000, dated 17-2-2000), as the genesis of facts in these two appeals is the same and intertwined with each other at more than one place.2. Undisputed facts necessary for the disposal of these two appeals are:--At an auction held on 1-5-1999 for the retail vend of arrack in Mangalore Taluk in respect of 272 shops, the bid of the appellant herein in a sum of Rs. 1,25,10,000/- per month, was accepted for the excise year 1-7-1999 to 30-6-2000. As per the terms of the auction under Excise Rules, appellant should have furnished Bank Guarantee in a sum of Rs. 3,87,81,000/-. Since the appellant could not mobilise the said amount he sought for extension of time to furnish the Bank Guarantee till 1-10-1999. He was permitted by the jurisdictional authority...
K.S. Bhagavan and Others Vs. the Housing Commissioner, Karnataka Housi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)KarLJ346
ORDER1. The petitioners were all allottees of houses constructed by the first respondent-Karnataka Housing Board. The allotments were made at provisional cost and Clause 7 of the allotment letters provided that the allottee shall accept any alteration in the value of the house, which will be intimated later. The petitioners have accepted the terms of allotment and have fulfilled all the formalities. The period of lease-cum-sale agreement also was over. Before executing the absolute sale deeds in favour of the petitioners, the Board issued the impugned demand notices at Annexures-H, J, K and L calling upon them pay the difference in the cost of the houses. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking to quash those demand notices and to direct the respondents to execute absolute sale deeds in their favour. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have paid the entire amount of the respective houses and since the period of lease was over, they are en...
The Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli, Davanagere District Vs. State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1947; 2000(4)KarLJ232
1. Appellant-the Town Panchayat, Harapanahalli, being aggrieved of the order passed by the Single Judge directing the appellant to allot in favour of each of the writ petitioner-respondents in W.P. Nos. 30845 to 30849 of 1998 a shop in the building constructed by it for a period of four years 11 months at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- and a further direction to allot a shop in favour of each of the writ petitioner-respondents in W.P. No. 30850 to 30854 of 1998 at a rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month for a period of 4 years 11 months, has filed these appeals challenging the impugned order.2. Facts: Respondent-writ petitioners (for short, 'the respondents') were tenants in respect of certain shop premises belonging to the appellant. The said shop premises came to be demolished by the appellant as per the directions of the Deputy Commissioner, Harapanahally (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent 2') for the purpose of widening the roads. Later on a scheme was introduced by the Government of India b...
Bhaskar Alias Bhaskar Devaram Bangad Vs. R.K. Srinivasan and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2000
Reported in: II(2001)ACC8; 2001ACJ383; ILR2000KAR1954; 2000(6)KarLJ531
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 168 and 171Case Referred:R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Private Limited and Others, AIR 1995 SC 755JUDGEMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and award passed by MACT - IV, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in MVC No. 1389 of 1992, dated 20-6-1998.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The parties would be referred to with reference to the rank before the Tribunal. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-towards injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 10-5-1992. It was alleged that while he was going on the left side of the road on his TVS moped on Bangalore Tumkur Road near Hosanijagal, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-03-T-1126 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Petitioner suffered crush injuries to both the le...
K.L. Ramnath Bhat Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (Kptc) ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2334; 2001(2)KarLJ182
Acts/Rules/Orders:Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Sections 49 and 79Case Referred:Tulsi Ram and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 666JUDGEMENTV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The matter pertains to unauthorised drawing of electricity. Mahazar was drawn and tampering of meter was noticed. A back-bill was issued to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,19,893/-. 50% of the said amount was paid by the petitioner. However, appeal was filed against the back-billing. In the appeal the demand was confirmed. The second appeal preferred against the said order also came to be dismissed. The writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the aforesaid orders was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 2-7-1999. This appeal is filed challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge.2. The contention put forth before the learned Single Judge that the officer who lodged the complaint had no competency, has been rightly negatived by the learned Single Judge placing reliance on Re...
Andhra Bank, Central Office, Hyderabad Vs. M.L. Gopichander
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2000
Reported in: [2000(87)FLR274]; 2000(3)KarLJ499; (2000)IILLJ307Kant
V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. At the outset we are compelled to state that even though this is not at all a fit case for the Bank to pursue this litigation, the appellant-Bank, without application of mind, without proper legal advise and mis-concerting about the wastage of public money and valuable time of the officers, has come up in this appeal questioning the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge who found that the Bank kept the respondent under suspension for nearly eight and half years during which period only four hearings for enquiry had been conducted and the penalty imposed is nothing more than censure. This case is a classic example as to how the officers at the helm of affairs are least bothered in the wastage of public money. If this kind of litigations are encouraged, the entire banking finance will have to be spent exclusively that not only the appellant-Bank officers but all others will open their eyes hereinafter before prosecuting litigations i...
Dr. K.G. Ramachandra Gupta and Another Vs. Dr. G. Adinarayana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1570; 2000(3)KarLJ481
1. All these three appeals are filed by the common complainant in C.C. Nos. 14647 of 1991 and 14191 of 1991 against the common judgment in C.C. Nos. 14191 of 1991 and 14647 of 1991, dated 22nd June. 1995 and the other complainant in C.C. No. 14190 of 1991 his wife, who filed the appeal against the judgment in C.C. No. 14190 of 1991, dated 22nd June, 1995, on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, acquitting the respondent-accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 1996 has been filed against the judgment in C.C. No. 14190 of 1991. Criminal Appeal No. 272 of 1996 has been filed against the judgment in C.C. No. 14647 of 1991. Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 1996 has been filed against the judgment in C.C. No. 14191 of 1991.3. The appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 270 of 1996 and 272 of 1996-complainant in C.C. Nos. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »