Karnataka Court May 2001 Judgments
Megharaj Vs. the Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)KarLJ320
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioner was an allottee of House No. 55 situated in II Stage. Kallahalli, Shimoga, by the Karnataka Housing Board. The said allotment had been cancelled under the impugned order at Annexure-A, dated 28-11-1998 on the ground that in the same layout another house bearing No. 56 had been allotted in favour of his wife. The order cancelling the house was challenged by the petitioner before the Principal District Judge, Shimoga, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 25 of 1998. By the impugned order at Annexure-B, dated 24-3-2001 the said appeal had been dismissed. Petitioner is seeking to quash both the orders in this writ petition.2. The cancellation of allotment of house is on the ground of ineligibility under Regulation 8 of the Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) Regulations, 1983. Under the said regulation, a person is not eligible for allotment if his/her wife/husband has been allotted a site or house by the Board. Admittedly, there is no dispute in the insta...
Tag this Judgment!Khaderbasha Vs. State by Sirvara Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ257
ORDER1. Heard on merits by consent.2. Fatima lodged a complaint with the Manvi Police in Raichur District, the gist of which is this: About a year prior to the date of the complaint, she was living with her grandparents in Athnoor Village in Manvi Taluk. Her neighbour, the petitioner accused Khaderbasha, aged 22 years, had come to her house along with one Hussainsab to see the television programme at about 9.30 p.m. At about 11 p.m. she woke up and found that the petitioner-accused and the said another were still in the process of seeing the television programme, whereas her grandparents had already gone to bed in the adjacent room, she herself in the meantime having already gone to bed earlier. Thus on seeing them still viewing the television, she sent them out and closed the door and slept inside the house. At about 1.30 a.m. that night, petitioner-accused silently gained entry into the house, woke up the said Fatima, assured her, promising in the name of God, that he would marry her...
Tag this Judgment!Rajashree Cement Limited Vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Bo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2001
Reported in: ILR2000KAR4600; 2001(4)KarLJ136
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 17-6-1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8707 of 1993 upholding the validity of the order dated 21-8-1991/17-2-1988 (Annexure-B) passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Gulbarga, and the consequential demand dated 30-12-1992/2-1-1993 (Annexure-D) raised against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 9,74,039.99 with interest at the rate of 21% along with service charges of the respondent-Board amounting in all Rs. 11,78,588.40 ps. 2. The appellant is a company engaged in manufacture of cement. It has a factory at Malkhed in Gulbarga District. 3. The 1st respondent-Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (in short the 'Board') is constituted under Section 5 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (in short, the 'KIAD Act'). The Act inter alia provides for securing the establishment of industrial areas in the State of Karnataka and to promote the establishment and or...
Tag this Judgment!Sandur Investment Company Limited, Sandur, Bellary District and Others ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(4)KarLJ427
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. Petitioners 2 to 4 are the Directors of petitioner 1-Company, which was registered with the Registrar of Companies and was incorporated on 17-8-1992.3. A complaint against petitioners dated 20-9-2000 under Section 383-A(l-A) of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short) was presented before the learned Trial Magistrate by the respondent complainant-Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, in C.C. No. 8 of 2000 pending on the file of the Court below. It is averred in the complaint that petitioners 2 to 4, who are accused 2 to 4 before the learned Magistrate, being the Directors of the company, are the officers in default within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act since no Managing Director or whole-time Managing Director or Manager as such of the company was appointed by them. Its authorised capital is Rs. 5 crore of 50 lakh equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. Its paid-up capital is 3 crores 40 lakhs consisting of 34,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each as per the ...
Tag this Judgment!Talikote Subhash Vs. the Returning Officer, Panchayat Town, Hungund, B ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2001
Reported in: 2001(5)KarLJ438
ORDERThe Court1. The petitioner in the first petition has challenged the order of rejection of his nomination paper issued by the Returning Officer, respondent herein and sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order at Annexure-D, dated 19-4-2001 urging various legal contentions.2. In the connected W.P. No. 19087 of 2001, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 20-4-2001, vide Annexure-A and further sought for issuance of such other relief, urging various legal contentions.3. The necessary brief facts of both the petitioners to consider the rival contentions are stated hereunder:The Returning Officer, the first respondent herein has published the calendar of events as per Annexure-R2 in the statement of counter filed by the first petitioner dated 11-4-2001 for conducting election to the Hungund Pattan Panchayath. As per the calendar of events the submission of nomination p...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ahmed Pasha and anr. Vs. C. Gulnaz Jabeen
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant412; ILR2001KAR3729; 2001(6)KarLJ413
ORDERThe Court 1. This revision by the respondents in the eviction petition in H.R.C. No. 838 of 1999 pending on the file of the Rent Court i.e., Court of Small Causes, Bangalore; is directed against its order dated 5-8-2000, passed rejecting their I.A. No. VII which was filed under Sub-clause (i)(b) of Section 20(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the 'Act' for short), praying to refer the case to Lok Adalat for settlement. 2. Respondent Mrs. C. Gulnaz Jabeen, herein is the petitioner in the said H.R.C. No. 838 of 1999. She is hereinafter referred as the landlady. The petitioners herein, who were respondents therein, are referred to as the tenants herein below. 3. The said H.R.C. No. 838 of 1999 was instituted by landlady against tenants for their eviction from the petition premises on the ground under clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Rent Control Act' for short). 4. The relevant facts of the dispute leading to this revision m...
Tag this Judgment!Anjaneyappa Vs. the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Kant352; 2002(1)KarLJ173
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the order at Annexure-E and F, dated 3-7-1999 passed in Revision No. D.V.S./R.P./No. ISO/99-2000. 2. The petitioner is an Archak performing the pooja in Sri Gopalaswamy Temple at Bagalahalli Village, Kolar District. The petitioner has certain Inam lands measuring 3 acres 38 guntas of land at Bagalahalli Village. The said lands were allotted in terms of Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1995 (for short the 'Act'). The respondent 2, the Special Deputy Commissioner fixed certain rates in terms of Section 19(1) of the Act at the rate of Rs. 361/-. The petitioner states that on identical circumstances, the very Deputy Commissioner has granted Rs. 750/- to Rs. 2,735/- in his order as per Annexure-D. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner has preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 21-A of the Act. The Divisional Commissioner, without provi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Gudi and anr. Vs. Anantha Ramacharya Gudi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-29-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3603; ILR2001KAR4516; 2002(1)KarLJ545
ORDERThe Court 1. Heard both sides. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the two petitioners herein have prayed that the order dated 31-8-2000 of the learned Magistrate made in Cr. Misc. No. 65 of 2000 on his fde directing issuance of process, may be quashed. A few material facts leading to this petition may be stated as under: A private complaint under Section 200 of the Or. P.C., alleging commission of offences under Sections 143, 147, 323, 448, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC was lodged before the learned Magistrate by one Bindu Madhav against petitioner 1-Ramachandra Gudi herein and four others. That complaint was taken on the file of the learned Magistrate viz., Judicial Magistrate First Class, Haveri in P.C.R. No. 35 of 1997. Petitioner 2 was the complainant's witness therein. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the said offences proceeded to record the sworn statement of petitioner 2 and other witnesses of the complainant. Thereafter,...
Tag this Judgment!Triveni theatres, Bangalore Vs. R.S. Devakumar and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR5166
ORDER1. This revision is filed by the tenants to challenge the order dated 15-2-1999 in HRC No. 1219 of 1998 by the Court of Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes (SCCH No. 8), Bangalore City. In passing the said order, the said Court had rejected the petition filed by the petitioners-tenants under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The petitioners herein are represented by M/s. Sundara Swaray Ramdas and Anand, Advocates, whereas the contesting respondents-landlords are represented by Sri. K.G. Raghavan appearing for M/s. Dua Associates.3. I heard both the learned Counsels appearing for the learned Counsel on record. When Sri Naganand had argued for the petitioners-tenants, Sri Arun Kumar appearing along with Sri K.S. Raghavan argued for the respondents-landlords.4. Before proceeding further, I deem it fit to narrate in brief the relevant facts of the case. They are:That, the petitioners-tenants originally entered into a contractual lease on 1-2-1963 with the re...
Tag this Judgment!A. Vamana Acharya Vs. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-2001
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR541]; ILR2001KAR4896; (2001)IILLJ1184Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner herein, a retired Officer of the respondent-Bank in filing the instant writ petition he has challenged the charge-sheet bearing No. 3/PD:IRD:DA.3/PSN/98, dated 19-9-1998, copy at Annexure-D to writ petition, inasmuch as he prayed that the same be quashed.2. The petitioner herein is represented by Sri C. Shashikantha, whereas the respondent-Bank is represented by Sri Tukaram S. Pai.3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined the services of the respondent-Bank as long back as in the year 1957 as a Clerk and he was promoted to the cadre of an Officer in the year 1962. That he was further promoted as Manager and thereafter, as Senior Manager and finally he was promoted as a Divisional Manager (Scale-IV) in the year 1990 and thus at the point of his retirement from service of the respondent-Bank on 31-1-1995 on attaining the age of superannuation, he was working as a Chief Manager in Chandni Chowk Branch at New Delhi of the respondent-Bank. That he had unb...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »