Karnataka Court April 2000 Judgments
Chikkappa Ningappa Shygoti Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ135
ORDER1. An interesting question is raised in this petition on the followingfacts:Facts.--Respondent 2 is a Marketing Committee of Kundgol constituted under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Regulations) Act ('the Act' for short). Elections were held for the said committee on 28-4-1997. Petitioner contested as a representative of Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Limited ('APMC' for short), Kundgol in terms of Section 11 of the Act. Incidentally, at the relevant point of time, petitioner happened to be a member of the committee and also the President of respondent 3. In the elections held to the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee in April 1997, petitioner was elected. He secured eight votes out of total number of fourteen votes. The elected office is for a period of five years.2. Petitioner further states that elections were held to the committee of respondent 3 on 30-5-1999. He did not contest in the said election to the committee and...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ghouse Peer Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3132; 2000(5)KarLJ115
ORDER1. The third respondent-Bank obtained an award against the petitioner. The property of the petitioner had been mortgaged in favour of the third respondent-Bank in respect of the loan taken by the petitioner and two of his brothers. In execution of the award, the said mortgaged property was brought to sale. Since the property mortgaged was large in extent, only a portion of that property was sold in execution of the award, and, in the said sale, the third respondent-Bank-decree-holder itself purchased that portion of the property. The sale proceeds were sufficient to discharge the amount due under the award. The award therefore stood fully satisfied. So far as the loan transaction between the petitioner and the third respondent, therefore, there was nothing that the third respondent could claim from the petitioner. In these circumstances, when the petitioner sought for return of original documents from the Bank (since the mortgage was by deposit of title deeds), the Bank took up th...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. R. Latha Vs. T. Madiyal, Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ304
ORDER1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus declaring the detention of Naga alias Nagaraja alias Huccha Nagaraja alias Makali Naga by Order No. 103 MAG (3) DTN 99, dated 17-12-1999 (Annexure-A) and confirmed by respondent 2 by order bearing No. HD 390 SST 99, dated 28-12-1999 and further confirmed in HD 390 SST 99, dated 10-2-2000 (Annexure-D) as illegal and void ab initio.2. It is averred in the petition that petitioner is the wife of the detenu, she has filed the petition as she is concerned with the personal liberty of the detenu. The detention order is illegal and detenu has been falsely implicated in pursuance to false cases foisted against him. It is averred that the order of detention is illegal as the detenu has not been purportedly furnished the grounds of detention, order of detention and material relied upon in passing the detention order as required under Article 22 of the Constitution of India....
Tag this Judgment!Kum. S. Shylaja and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3892; 2000(6)KarLJ349
ORDER1. Though these petitions were posted for orders on the application filed by the respondents seeking modification of the interim order, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for hearing; and since the questions involved in these petitions are same and identical, all these petitions are taken up together for final hearing and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners, in these petitions, have prayed for quashing the order dated 23rd of April, 1999 passed by the Managing Director of the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G in Writ Petition Nos. 15339 to 15364 of 1999;and for a further direction to the respondents to treat the petitioners as permanent employees of the Karnataka Warehousing Corporation and to give parity of service conditions as given to other permanent employees of the Corporation.3. The Karnataka Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ganesh and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3982; 2000(6)KarLJ459
ORDER1. The two petitioners and the sixth respondent, along with others, had been elected to the Committee of the second respondent-Society. In pursuance of Section 29-F(4) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act,1959 ('Act' for short) and Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 ('Rules' for short), the Chief Executive of the second respondent-Society arranged to have the President of the Society elected on 10-6-1999. A day earlier, i.e., on 9-6-1999, as at Annexure-E, first respondent-State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 29(1) of the Act, nominated respondents 3 to 5 as its representatives on the Committee of the second respondent-Society. The said nominated members of the Committee, together with the elected members of the Committee, participated in the election of the President held on 10-6-1999. As Annexure-F would show, out of 18 members of the Committee, including the elected and the nominated, 10 members voted in favour of sixth res...
Tag this Judgment!B.D. Makkar Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2960; 2001(2)KarLJ608
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. Working as an Executive Engineer (Mechanical), petitioner earned certain adverse reports including a warning which was kept on his confidential record. Because of the adverse remarks in the ACR petitioner was not promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Mechanical).2. Petitioner filed O.A. No. 2069 of 1989 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the 'Tribunal'), stating therein that the reports given to him by his superior were biased as he was enemical towards him. He claimed promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) ignoring the adverse remarks made against him.3. Tribunal did not accept the various pleas raised by the petitioner and dismissed the O.A. No. 2069 of 1989. Later on, petitioner filed a review petition seeking review of the order passed in O.A. No. 2069 of 1989. The same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the original order passed in O.A. No. 2069 of 1989 and the subsequent order passed in the review petition, peti...
Tag this Judgment!Waddara Bhovi Quarrying Labour Co-operative Society Limited, Rawoor, C ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: 2001(3)KarLJ194
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash the demand notice at Annexure-E, dated 8-3-1995 calling upon the petitioner to pay the royalty and dead rent from 1993 to 1994 to the Department of Mines and Geology. According to the petitioner-Society, it is not liable to pay the said demand as exemption is granted to it by the Government under Annexure-C, dated 7-3-1992 in exercise of the powers under Rules 5(ii) and 19 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969, which rules are repealed by Rules 1994. It is contended that the exemption granted in the said Government Order is saved in the 1994 Rules.2. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. The impugned demand notice is rightly issued on the ground that in 1994 Rules, there is no provision for giving the exemption claimed by the petitioner under Annexure-C. Rule 58 of the 1994 Rules reads thus.-'68. Repeal and saving.--The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 are hereby repeal...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar Gogi Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Shimoga and Anoth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR2484; 2000(4)KarLJ534
ORDER1. This petition is filed challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 3-4-2000 in Revision Petition No. 1111 of 1997.2. The facts in brief are as hereunder:The petitioner holds the stage carriage permit No. 83 of 1993-94 for the route Shimoga to Anavatti and back. He filed an application for variation of the conditions of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority (R.T.A.) considered the said application under Sub. No. 7 of 1997-98 in its meeting held on 4/5-6-1997. The variation was granted and the matter was referred to the Secretary, R.T.A., for fixation of timings. The Secretary, as per Annexure-A assigned the timings. Aggrieved by the grant of timings, respondent 2 filed a revision petition before the Tribunal in R.P. No. 1111 of 1997. Since there was a delay in approaching the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent rightly filed one application for condonation of the delay and another application for grant of stay. The Tribunal has now passed an order at Annexure-B ordering the Secr...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesha Alias Maheshkumar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC532; ILR2000KAR4107; 2000(6)KarLJ332
1. This criminal appeal which once again concerns the familiar but unpalatable allegation of death of a married woman due to suicide raises a few interesting legal facets particularly with regard to the area of law concerning dying declarations. The deceased Meenakshi was married to the accused who apparently was a carpenter by profession in the year 1990 and the couple had one child. The prosecution alleges that the accused was in the habit of ill-treating the wife particularly because of his economic condition which was further ruined due to his habit of gambling. There is not much evidence on record with regard to the causes for the ill-treatment other than the above one but the general allegation is to the effect that Meenakshi was pushed to a position whereby she was very close to desperation. On 3-11-1993 at about 8.30 P.M. Meenakshi's clothes were on fire and she was screaming for help. The door of the house was locked and the evidence of the neighbours who rushed to her assista...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Prasad Vs. H.L. Jayanarasimha and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4335; 2001(3)KarLJ161
ORDER1. This contempt petition is filed alleging that the first respondent had Willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 2883 of 1997, dated 26-8-1997 directing him not to sell or alienate or in any way encumber the schedule property.2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant filed a suit O.S. No. 1223 of 1997 on the file of the. City Civil Court, Bangalore for recovery of an amount of Rs. 8.42 lakhs. In the suit he sought for attachment before the judgment of the schedule property, on the ground that the first respondent is trying to sell the schedule property. The first respondent made an averment that he is not intending to sell the schedule property. The Trial Court rejected the application filed for attachment. Against the said order the complainant filed an appeal M.F.A. No. 2883 of 1997 in this Court. This Court after satisfying that there is a prima facie case on merits passed an order dated 26-8-1997 directing the first respondent herein not to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »