Karnataka Court June 2000 Judgments
Paravatagouda Vs. Revanashiddayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1446
ORDERG. Patri Basavana Goud, J.1. The impugned order needs to be set aside, and the matter needs to be remitted to the learned Magistrate for the following reasons.2. No doubt, on taking cognizance, and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. But, he has not noted as to for which offences the case needs to be registered, and the process needs to be issued. It is essential for the learned Magistrate to specifically say as to what of-fences are made out, and therefore, for which particular offences the accused needs to be proceeded against. It is then that in respect of those offences that the case comes to be registered and process comes to be issued. Section 204, Cr.P.C makes it clear that it is essential to make it clear at the outset as to for what offence the case comes to be registered. It is on that basis that the process is issued, viz., if it is summons case, then on...
Tag this Judgment!G.C. Nagaraju Vs. the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Mysore Division, Mys ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR5033; 2001(1)KarLJ71
1. This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-6-1993 in O.S. No. 605 of 1988 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mysore (hereinafter in brief referred to as 'Civil Judge'). In passing the same, the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the suit of the appellant on trial mainly on the point of limitation. 2. The appellant is represented by the learned Counsel, Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, whereas the contesting respondents are represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri P.G. Chengappa. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell are as hereunder: 4. That the appellant had resorted to a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,64,079.00 with interest at 21% till the date of recovery before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Mysore. His case was that the respondent 1 had entrusted the work of construction of Horticultural Buildingat Beerwal in Nugu at an estimated cost of Rs. 65,000.00 in C.R. No. 31 of 1976-77 and also renovation and repairs to the agricu...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Shivananda Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Davanagere
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ636
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner, who is an operator of a maxi-cab bearing registration No. KA. 17/8247 having seating capacity of 9+1 under a permit, has prayed to quash respondent's order No. RTO/DVG/KA. 17-8247/2000-2001, dated 8-5-2000 per Annexure-A, purporting to be the endorsement issued to petitioner rejecting his request for alteration of his said vehicle from maxi-cab to motor-cab with a seating capacity of 5+1.2. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels on both sides.3. The impugned order has been passed by respondent relying on a Single Bench decision of this Court in L. Venu v Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore, where it was held that under the relevant provisions of Section 52 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) read with Rules 49 and 151 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('the Rules' for short), such a structural change of a transport vehicle or any vehicle for that purpose was not permissible. The decision in...
Tag this Judgment!Challa Venkata Naidu and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)KarLJ466
ORDER1. I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. Respondent 4 is served and unrepresented. It appears that despite efforts, the respondents 3 and 5 have not been served but, I am not delaying the disposal of the proceeding on that ground because the affected party who is required to be heard is represented by the learned Government Advocate and he has been heard in detail. However, after remand the Tribunal shall take necessary steps to ensure that all the necessary parties or their legal representatives have notice of the proceeding.2. This is an unusual case where the petitioners contend that they had filed their application before the Tribunal for the grant of occupancy rights, and according to them, despite a long lapse of time, the cases were not taken up and they were under the impression that because the opposite parties were influential persons, that their cases have been put into cold storage. They filed writ p...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Raman Malu Vs. Smt. Venkatamma and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4746; 2001(3)KarLJ374
ORDER1. Heard.These revision petitions filed by the common petitioner against different respondents are taken up together for disposal as their decision rests on common question of law.2. The petitioner herein is common plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 126 to 130 of 1995 instituted in the Trial Court against respective respondents for the relief of injunction prohibiting them from alienating the respective items of suit properties or from creating encumbrance with respect thereto in favour of any third party. In the plaints it is averred that each of defendant 1 in the aforesaid suits, had executed the suit agreement for sale in plaintiffs favour in respect of his suit property. The suits are being contested by respective defendant 1 therein. It is an undisputed fact that temporary injunction in plaintiff's favour in each of the suit was also granted by the Trial Court restraining defendants from effecting any transfer or alienation of the suit properties. Those suits were filed in 1995. Subsequ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Appayya Khot (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others Vs. State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ461
ORDER1. I have heard the learned Advocates representing the various contesting parties as also the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 on merits. In this case, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioners' application for default and a perusal of the order indicates that there was some justification for this insofar as the parties had repeatedly remained absent and even after the Tribunal virtually gave them a last chance, that there was no improvement in the situation. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for setting aside the order of dismissal and restoration of the proceeding and the Tribunal ultimately dismissed this application holding that it did not have any power to grant the application as the proceeding had been terminated. In other words, the Tribunal took the view that it had become functus officio. The present petition has been directed against the two orders of the Tribunal, the first being the order of dismissal and the second one being the order of ...
Tag this Judgment!P.B. Nawas Khan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ798; 2001(73)ECC444; ILR2001KAR1927; 2001(1)KarLJ45
ORDER1. The petitioner who has been arrayed as accused 2 in CC No. 189 of 1999 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21, 27 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'N.D.P.S. Act') is seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that no offence had been made out against him. 2. The petitioner's case is that he is a resident of Coimbatore and was running a Hotel in Partnership with one Salim of Trivandram. The petitioner claims that on the dissolution of the partnership, the petitioner was not put in possession of a five storied building worth 75 lakhs and on that account he is being implicated by his partner Salim in various cases including the one in question. 3. The first accused, Aji Kumar and Mohammed, the third respondent are prosecuted along with the petitioner in respect of an incident that took place on 27-6-1999. It is stated that on 27-6-1999 accused 1 and accused 3 and another pers...
Tag this Judgment!Chowrinathan and Others Vs. the Management of M/S. Bharath Gold Mines ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)KarLJ15; (2001)ILLJ1052Kant
1. The Management of M/s. Bharath Gold Mines Limited preferred these appeals assailing the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 7218 to 7220 of 1990, dated 3-9-1998 insofar as it relates to reinstatement of the respondents with the benefit of continuity of service and consequential benefits.2. The workmen also questioned the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition Nos. 7218 to 7220 of 1990, dated 3-9-1998 insofar as it relates to denial of back wages. The parties herein will be referred to with respect to their original status as the Management and the workmen. 3. M/s. Bharath Gold Mines Limited is a public sector undertaking engaged in mining activities of extraction and purification of gold at Kolar Gold Fields, Kolar, in which 3 workmen namely Chowrinathan, Jagadeesha and Govindraj were the employees. That on 17-4-1982 at about 3.45 P.M. while the Sub-Inspector of Police, Champion Reefs, K.G.F. accompanied with the Circle Inspector of Police were on round...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Honnappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: 2001(2)KarLJ125
ORDER1. In these two writ petitions the prayers are to quash the impugned orders by which the appointment of certain teaching and non-teaching staff have been approved. While W.P. No, 26343 of 1993 is filed by one ofthe Directors of Sri Gurusiddeshwaraswamy Educational Institution of Tumkur, W.P. No. 11580 of 1992 is filed by the same institution represented by its Secretary. Since both the petitions involve identical facts and similar grounds, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. The solitary ground raised in the first writ petition is that the appointment of respondents 6 to 9 is opposed to Article 16(4) of the Constitution as reservation policy was not followed and hence the approval of those appointments is bad in law. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons.- (a) The appointments were made pursuant to the resolution at Annexure-R1, dated 10-12-1989. The petitioner was a signatory to the said resolution. Therefore, he is estop...
Tag this Judgment!Mairiyamma Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3706; 2000(6)KarLJ241
ORDER1. The Counsel for the revision petitioner absent.2. Heard Sri D.L. Shivkumar, Government Advocate.3. This is the rival tenant's revision being aggrieved of the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in case No. LRA 36 of 1988 setting aside the order of the land Tribunal ordering vesting of the land with the State.4. The brief facts are as follows:The land bearing Survey No. 2 situated at Bintravalli Village, Koppa Taluk, measuring 3 acres is endowed to the deity of Hanumantha Devaru. In respect of the said land, the revision petitioner's husband Kusa Poojari filed Form 7, whereas the respondent 2-Narayana Shetty also filed application for grant of occupancy. The Land Tribunal, Koppa granted occupancy in favour of Narayanashetty to the extent of 2 acres 13 guntas by rejecting Form 7 of Kusa Poojari on the ground that Kusa Poojari has filed Form 7 after the date notified i.e., on 16-9-1990. The said order was questioned before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority by the wife...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »