Karnataka Court October 2001 Judgments
Valliappa Software Technological Park (Private) Limited Vs. C. Sundara ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1476; 2002(1)KarLJ358
ORDERThe Court1. The 12th respondent in the Court below has preferred the above two revision petitions challenging the orders passed by the Court below holding that the said Court has got jurisdiction to decide the application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to in short 'Act') and also the order rejecting the request of the 12th respondent to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11-A of the CPC for want of cause of action.2. The first respondent herein filed an application under Section 9 of the Act against the petitioner herein and other eleven parties for an interim order by way of injunction restraining the respondent 1 from collecting any amount by way of rent from respondents 2 to 11 in occupation of the portion of the property belonging to the firm at No. 71, Millers Road, Bangalore, till the award is passed by the Tribunal and for appointing the petitioner jointly with the respondent as joint receivers to manage the affa...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkat Reddy Vs. M. Bache Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR5466; 2002(3)KarLJ503
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioner in O.S. No. 118 of 2001 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chintamani for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the possession of the property. When the matter was pending thus, the petitioner here in filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 contending that there is a clause in the agreement to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. On the basis of it he requested the Court to refer it to the Arbitrator to be nominated as per the agreement. However, the respondent herein contended that no agreement was entered into and it need not be referred to the Arbitrator etc. After hearing to both the parties, the Court has rejected I.A. No. III on 24-9-2001. This order is questioned in this petition.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent al...
Tag this Judgment!Shoba Vs. Srinivas Veeranna Badiger
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: I(2002)DMC574; ILR2002KAR350; 2002(4)KarLJ44
K.L. Manjunath, J.1. This appeal is by the wife who has suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Parties herein married at Bagalkot on 21-6-1986. After the marriage, parties started residing at Bagalkote. According to the petitioner-husband, since the beginning marriage was not a successful marriage and that the husband was not happy with the conduct of the wife due to her erratic and inconsistent behaviour. Therefore, he filed the petition seeking divorce on two grounds.2. According to him, wife was leading an adulterous life with one Narayan who is an employee of her father. Therefore, he sought a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery. He also urged the ground of cruelty on the ground that on 10-6-1988 wife picked up quarrel, started abusing him. According to him, at the heat of moment, wife removed her Mangalasutra from her neck and threw the same on the roadside gutter and the said incident has caused mental agony and therefore he sought a decree of divorce.3. P...
Tag this Judgment!Anwar Vs. T.R. Revanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ150
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The revision filed against the order passed by the n Additional Munsiff (Civil Judge, Junior Division), Tumkur, in HRC No. 34 of 1987 and the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Tumkur, in RR No. 8 of 1992.2. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenants under Section 21(1)(a), (h), (i), (j) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.3. The Trial Court, on the consideration of the oral and documentary evidence allowed the petition under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act and dismissed the petition filed on the other grounds. The first Revisional Court confirmed the order of eviction under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act and dismissed the revision of the tenant. Being aggrieved, the present revision is filed.4. On going through the impugned judgment and the evidence discussed therein, it is successfully established by the landlord that the tenant is owning an alternative premises very near to the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Shobha Srinivas Bodigar Vs. Srinivas Veeranna Bodigar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant256
K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. This appeal is by the wife who has suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Parties herein married at Bagalkot on 21-6-1986. After the marriage, parties started residing at Bagalkot. According to the petitioner-husband, since the beginning marriage was not a successful marriage and that the husband was not happy with the conduct of the wife due to her erratic and inconsistent behaviour. Therefore, he filed the petition seeking divorce on two grounds. 2. According to him, wife was leading an adulterous life with one Narayan who is an employee of her father. Therefore, he sought a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery. He also urged the ground of cruelty on the ground that on 10-6-1988 wife picked up quarrel started abusing him. According to him, at the heat of moment, wife removed her Mangalsutra from her neck and threw the same on the roadside gutter and the said incident has caused mental agony and therefore he sought a decree of divorce. 3. P...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay G. Revankar Vs. State by Drug Inspector, Uttar Kannada District ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1353; ILR2002KAR475; 2002(3)KarLJ304
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Though these petitions pertain to number of accused in different criminal cases launched by the State of Karnataka represented by Drugs Inspector, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar, as the offence alleged against the accused petitioners are common and the grounds raised and the questions of law involved are one and the same, all these petitions were taken up for consideration together and are being disposed off by this common order.2. In all these cases, the manufacturers of 'Fratouch' Framacytin Sulphate 1% w/W, partners, chemists, analysts and distributors have been arrayed as accused by the State in the individual complaints filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code inter alia alleging offences in common against all the petitioners of the offence under Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for the manufacture, sale and distribution of spurious or sub-standard drugs punishable under Section 27(c) ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bala Gurukulam Sanskrit Teacher Training Institute, Melakondumalur ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ213
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner claims to be a linguistic minority educational Institution established in the year 1985 at Melakodumalur in Ramanathapuram District of State of Tamil Nadu. It was, according to the petitioner, in existence as on the date the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 came into force. An application seeking recognition of the NCTE established under the aforementioned Act was filed by the petitioner before the Southern Regional Committee at Bangalore in February 1996. On receipt of the said application, the Regional Committee appears to have in terms of a communication dated 1st of January, 1999 informed the petitioner that the request for recognition could not be considered since the Institution was not functioning as on 17th of August, 1995 the date on which the Act came into force. The communication further required the petitioner to produce a no objection certificate from the State Government as required by Regulation 5(e) of the NCTE ...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathi and ors. Vs. the University of Mysore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: 2001(6)KarLJ469
1. On 8-2-1993 the University of Mysore invited applications in eight sets to fill up certain posts in different departments, namely Professors, Readers and Lecturers. The appellants, Dr. Saraswathi and Subha Chandra and the second respondent, Dr. Padma Shekar filed applica-tions as candidates for the post of Reader in Jainology. The second respondent was selected as Reader in the Department of Jainology which was challenged by the appellants herein before this Court in Saraswathi and Anr. V. University of Mysore and Anr.. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions upholding the appointment of the second respondent as Reader in the Department of Jainology and Prakrit. The said order is now challenged before us.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants Sri Padmarajaiah has raised two valid grounds before us. According to him the very constitution of Board of Selection under Section 49 to fill up the post of Reader was contrary to the provisions of Section 49 of the Karnat...
Tag this Judgment!Virupakshappa Malleshappa Sanklapur and ors. Vs. Akkamahadevi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Kant83; ILR2002KAR1963; 2002(1)KarLJ394
P. Vishwanatha Shetty1. Appellants 1 to 5 in this appeal were defendants 1 to 4 and 7 respectively. In this appeal, they have called in question the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 22nd June, 1995 made on O.S. No. 2 of 1990 by the Court of Civil Judge at Koppal.2. The parties, in the course of this judgment, will be referred to with reference to their respective ranking before the Trial Court.3. Brief facts of the case, which may be relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be stated as hereunder:Respondents 1 and 2 filed suit O.S. No. 2 of 1990, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge at Koppal seeking for partition and award of possession of their one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties and also for future mesne profits from the date of the suit till they are put in possession of the suit schedule properties. (b) The plaintiffs and defendant 6 are the daughters of one Siddaramappa Sanklapur. Defendant 5 is the wife of the said Sid-daramappa Sanklapur. Accord...
Tag this Judgment!John Mahade Vs. Smt. Mary Alias Shanta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-2001
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ277
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Revision filed against the order of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hubli, passed in HRC No. 181 of 1995 and of the I Additional District Judge, Dharwad, in RR No. 140 of 1999. The petitioner is the tenant. The landlord/respondent made an application for eviction of the tenant under Section 21(l)(p) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, It was the contention of the landlord that subsequent to the lease, the petitioner/tenant has acquired a suitable residential premises of his own in Adhyapaknagar, Hubli, and also contends that the petition premises is old. He requires to demolish the same and reconstruct.2. Before Trial Court, the sanctioned plan is also produced. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court allowed the eviction on the ground of Section 21(l)(p) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. In revision filed by the tenant/petitioner, the findings of the Trial Court were confirmed granting eviction unde...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »