Karnataka Court September 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.
Kanteppa and Another Vs. Land Tribunal, Bidar and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: ILR2001KAR426; 2001(4)KarLJ208
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. In this petition, the petitioners herein had challenged the order dated 21-1-1976 in case No. LRM/66/75-76-11071-75 passed by the respondent 1-Land Tribunal. In passing the said order, the Land Tribunal in consideration of the claim of the original respondent 2-Adavappa had granted occupancy right to him.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Raikote had taken me through the petition averments, the grounds urged in the writ petition and also the impugned order. His argument was that Land Tribunal had granted the occupancy right to one of the L.Rs as the legal successor of the protected tenant in consideration of the Form No. 7 filed by the original respondent 2 in his own name.3. While taking me through the impugned order, produced by the petitioners, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition, Sri Raikote pointed out that the grant was made to the original respondent 2 as a legal heir of the protected tenant. He further submitted that the petitioners 1 ...
Modinsaheb Peersaheb Peerzade and Others Vs. Smt. Meerabi and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3716; 2000(6)KarLJ616
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 100 of 1989 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Jamakhandi.2. Defendants 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 in the suit are the appellants. The plaintiff and defendants 6 and 7 are respondents in the appeal. Appellants 1 to 3 are the brothers of the first and fourth respondents. The 5th appellant is the aunt of the first respondent and appellants 1 to 3. Respondents 2 and 3 are the alienees of the 5th appellant. Appellants 6 to 8 are the alienees of the second appellant.3. One Kasimsaheb and Peersaheb are the full brothers. Kasimsaheb died on 13-11-1968 leaving behind his widow-the 5th appellant. Peersaheb died on 25-9-1987 leaving behind appellants 1 to 4 and the first respondent who are his children. 'A' schedule properties are agricultural lands situated at Kokatanur Village in Athani Taluk, 'B' schedule properties are agricultural lands situated at Tungal Village in Jamkhandi Taluk, 'C' schedule prope...
KhamruddIn (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. N. Tahir Ahmed and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3641; 2000(6)KarLJ284
ORDER1. By order dated 22-3-2000, the two revision petitions under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code in C.R.P. No. 3026 of 1999 and C.R.P. No. 3027 of 1999 were dismissed by me. In these two petitions under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code the petitioners have sought for review of the said common order.2. Few facts relevant for the disposal of these two applications may be stated thus:Petitioners are the L.Rs of deceased Khamruddin, defendant in O.S. No. 4305 of 1989 in the Court of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. It would appear that there was an agreement between them to sell the house property situated in the City of Bangalore and accordingly deceased Khamruddin executed an agreement to sell dated 2-4-1987 agreeing to sell the property for a sum of Rs. 8,57,000/-. It is stated that thereafter the deceased Khamruddin refused to execute the sale deed and therefore plaintiff instituted original suit in O.S. No. 10743 of...
Management of Welcomegroup Windsor Manor Sherator and Towers Vs. M.S. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR736]; (2001)ILLJ1182Kant
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. The respondent was an employee of the petitioner which is a hotel industry. He raised an industrial dispute against the petitioner in Reference No. 170/1987 under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') alleging that his services were terminated w.e.f. September 18, 1985. The parties appeared before the Labour Court, Bangalore, and filed their respective claim and counter statements. Consequently, the Labour Court framed issues and treated the question of fairness of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. In support of their case, the petitioner examined one witness on the issue of validity of the domestic enquiry. However, the respondent examined himself and two witnesses both in regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry and also the settlement dated April 1, 1986, However, both the parties addressed arguments on the issue of validity of domestic enquiry. When the matter was posted for further arguments on October 7, 1...
Prabhu Alias H.C. Prabhakara Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1427
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Add1. District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Sessions Case No. 3/93. The allegation against the accused was that he had used a fire-arm and caused gun shot injuries to PW-1 H.S. Payanna Shetty at about 7 p.m. on the evening of 2-11-1991 at Hosahalli Village. The prosecution alleges that there was some background to this incident insofar as the complainant had been instrumental in taking certain steps relating to a plot of land on which the accused had encroached and that the accused was therefore ill-disposed towards the complainant and that this was the motive for the commission of the offence. The learned trial Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable Under Section 307, IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for 4 months for the offence punishable Under Section 307, IPC. He was further sentenced to suffer R...
Smt. Suguna and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4408
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. This is a custodial violence and death while in police custody. The Apex Court time and again being concerned and pained by police tortures and lockup deaths has observed in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy as under :Right to life is one of the basic human rights. It is guaranteed to every person by Article 21 of the Constitution and not even the State has the authority to violate that right. A prisoner, be he a convict or under-trial or detenu, does not cease to be a human being. Even when lodged in jail, he continues to 'enjoy all his fundamental rights, including the right to life guaranteed to him under the Constitution, on being convicted of crime and deprived of their liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law, prisoners still retain the residue of constitutional rights. 2. The Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera v. State Orissa reported in : 1993CriLJ2899 was pleased to observe (Para 30) :It is axiomatic that con...
Bangalore Mahanagara Nagareeka Kriyasamithi Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: ILR2000KAR3772; 2001(3)KarLJ123
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioner is an unregistered association claimed to have been formed for taking steps to solve the grievances of citizens of Bangalore and for safeguarding their civil rights.2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Association as a Public Interest Litigation, questioning the implementation of Property Tax Self-Assessment Scheme (in short, 'the Scheme'), framed and published by the respondent-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike through its Commissioner. The ground raised for impugning the Scheme is that it isviolative of Article 265 read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India since formation of such a Scheme is not permitted under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (in short, 'the Act') and even if found to be so permissible, it is still void because it is tainted with hostile discriminations,3. The Scheme had been framed and enforced by the respondent-Commissioner pursuant to the Mahanagara Palike Council Resolution No...
Venkatachalaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2001CriLJ1433
B. Padmaraj, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State and carefully perused the material placed on record by the prosecution with their assistance.2. This appeal by the appellant Venkatachalaiah, who is the sole accused in the case, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court, whereby the appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, for having caused the death of one Gowramma on 28-1-1995 at about 11.30 a.m. by the side of a road situated behind the house of the appellant at Manchanagondanahalli village within the limits of Kyatasandra Police Station. The appellant is alleged to have assaulted the deceased or committed assault on her with a chopper M.O.5.3. The incident in question took place on 28-1-1995 at about 11.30 a.m. in the morning by the side of a road situated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›