Karnataka Court January 2002 Judgments
Venkataswamy Vs. Narayana A. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant326; 2002(4)KarLJ377
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal arise out of the judgment and decree of the 7th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore passed in O.S. No. 6194 of 1992. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit for their eviction from the suit premises described A and B Schedules of the plaint. A Schedule property consists of a house property bearing No. 98, khata No. 264/129 of Kodihalli, 16th 'B' Main Road, Indiranagar, Bangalore and B Schedule Property is a vacant portion of the land adjoining the A Schedule property. Defendants 1 and 2 are made respondents in this appeal as respondents 1 and 2. The 4th defendant was the father of the appellant, since dead the is not made a party in this appeal, defendant 5-mother is made third respondent in the appeal.2. It was the contention of the plaintiff before the trial Court that the suit schedule property is his exclusive property and out of grace he had allowed the defendants/respondents to r...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Karnataka State Public Instructions (Education), Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant446; 2002(3)KarLJ172
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The authorities who are functionaries of the State and who are entrusted with power to grant what is known as a caste certificate, certifying the community to which a person belongs to, are the petitioners in this writ petition. The 1st respondent is the person in whose favour such a certificate was sought for and the 2nd respondent to the writ petition is the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamkhandi.2. The brief facts leading to the petition are:The 1st respondent had filed Original Suit No. 196 of 1998 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jamkhandi, for a declaration about his caste that he belongs to a particular community and for consequential mandatory injunction for rectification of the records to this effect. It appears that the 1st respondent's community as indicated in the official records is Hindu Lingayat. The 1st respondent had filed the suit for a declaration that he belongs to Hindu Ganig and for the consequential ma...
Tag this Judgment!Rame Gowda and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant177
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition is at the instance of the defendants in O.S. 198/98 on the file of the Court of the II Munsiff, Mysore Respondents 4 and 5 are the plaintiffs in that suit and the said suit is brought for declaration that plaintiffs are entitled for a right of easement by way of a pathway over the lands of the defendants for a declaration and consequential restraint order not to interfere with the plaintiffs when the pathway is used.2. In the said suit, an interim application had been filed seeking for an order of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The application was opposed and the trial Court dismissed the application. The matter was carried by way of appeal by the plaintiffs in M.A. 8/99 to the Court of the 11 Additional Civil 30udge, Senior Division, Mysore. Ultimately, by a judgment dated 18-12-1999, the appeal and the application under Order 39. Rules 1 and 2 Were allowed and the respondent-defendants were directed by the C...
Tag this Judgment!State by Psi (i and O), Athani Police Station Vs. Pundalik Annappa Gar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ409
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor both on merits as also on I.A. I which is for condonation of delay of 222 days. The delay in this case is relatively gross and normally, we would not have condoned the delay except for the fact that this is a very old proceeding, that there were some procedural problems in the way of the State in the matter of filing this appeal. Having regard to what has been pointed out, the delay is condoned. I.A. I is allowed, (affidavit indicating the grounds for the delay has been tendered by the learned Counsel and the same has been taken on record).2. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, we find that the principal reason why the Trial Court has acquitted the accused is because the requisite sanction under Section 111 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act was not obtained. The allegations against the accused was that he had not accounted for a sum of Rs. 3,905-80 paise which according to the complai...
Tag this Judgment!N. Nagambikadevi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1334; ILR2002KAR997; 2002(2)KarLJ90
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath1. The petitioner who is arraigned as accused 4 in Cr. No. RC/22(A/2000 by the respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation has come up in this petition to quash the proceedings.2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows:The petitioner/accused, who is an IAS Officer, was working as the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Karwar, during the relevant period. The other accused in the case are Smt. Shantha kumari, K.S.A.S. (Karnataka State Accounts Service), the then Accounts Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Karwar, her husband Sri N. Ramachandra, Sri Rathnakar, Senior Manager, Karwar, and one Sri Shastri, the then Branch Manager, Varada Grameena Bank, Karwar. According to the respon-dent/complainant-CBI, during the year 1998, accused 1-Rathnakar, while functioning as the Senior Manager, Corporation Bank, Karwar, entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused 2-Smt. Shantha kumari, the then Chief Accounts Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Karwar, and severa...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Thippeswamy Vs. Smt. Gangamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ512
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The appellant was the first defendant, respondents 2 and 3 were defendants 2 and 3 and the first respondent was the plaintiff in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties are referred to as in the Trial Court.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 577 of 1988 against the defendants for declaration that she is the owner of suit schedule properties and the 3rd defendant has no right to cancel the gift deed by the deed dated 14-3-1988 and also for permanent injunction. The suit schedule properties were gifted by the 3rd defendant to the plaintiff under a registered gift deed dated 27-5-1982 but the same had been cancelled by a registered deed dated 14-3-1988. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement. The first defendant contended that the plaintiff obtained the gift deed in her favour by misrepresentation and playing fraud.3. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkathayamma Vs. Siddaiah Alias Siddegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ306
V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The appellant was the first defendant, respondents 2 and 3 were defendants 2 and 3 and the first respondent was plaintiff in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties are referred to as in the Trial Court.2. Plaintiff/first respondent filed the suit in O.S. No. 40 of 1986 for a declaration that the sale deed dated 13-1-1976 executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the first defendant/appellant was not binding on him and for possession of the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is ancestral property; that after the death of his parents he went to his village to earn the livelihood; that the 2nd defendant, claiming to be the guardian of the plaintiff, along with defendant 3, sold the property in favour of the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 13-1-1976. The plaintiff asserts that the 2nd defendant was neither his guardian nor was he lawfully appointed as such under the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Shivaraj and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2741; II(2003)DMC214; ILR2002KAR3839
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The State of Karnataka has assailed the correctness of an order of acquittal recorded by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bidar in Sessions Case No. 36/1991 on.5.7.1996, The two accused before the trial Court were Shivaraj who was the husband of accused No. 2 Bhagamma. This Shivaraj had no children through Bhagamma and it is alleged that in the year 1983 he married deceased Vimlabai at Udgir. Apart from the usual allegations that at the time of the marriage a prescribed sum of money and gold ornaments etc. had passed hands, the prosecution alleged that six months after the marriage the two accused started harassing and torturing Vimlabai in order to force her to secure one thola of gold from her parents as additional dowry. Obviously, the parents were not in a position to comply with this demand and the prosecution case is that these pressures just kept on increasing and as a result of the cruelty that was inflicted on Vimlabai that she finally ended her life by jumpin...
Tag this Judgment!Usha S. Rao Vs. the Common Entrance Test (C.E.T.) Cell, Bangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)KarLJ141
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner Usha S. Rao in this petition is seeking for a direction directing the respondents to take steps to refund a sum of Rs. 32,500/-paid towards 'Admission Fee' with interest. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that Sub-rules (xi) and (xii) of Rule 18 of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997 is unconstitutional.2. The petitioner's son Sri S. Nagendra appeared for the Common Entrance Test (for short, 'CET) conducted by the State Government for admission to professional courses. After two rounds of counselling in Bangalore, the petitioner's son was offered a payment seat for admission to B.E. in Computers at Karnataka Law Society's Gogte Institute of Technology, Udyambag, Belgaum - 590 008. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 32,500/- towards fees. The candidate also applied for admission to B.S. in Computer Science at Philips University, United States of America and got admission in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Manjunatha Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Dharwad and ors. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant237; ILR2002KAR1371; 2002(3)KarLJ74
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Stamp and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act No. 6 of 2001) has been assailed in the present writ petitions insofar as the same has omitted proviso (1) to Article 20 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1.957 and inserted a proviso at the end of Section 38 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The vires of Section 45-A(5) of the said Act and Rule 9 of the Karnataka Stamp (Prevention of Under valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1977 has also been assailed insofar as and to the extent the same prescribe a pre-deposit of 50% of the stamp duty determined for filing of an appeal against any order made by the District Registrar or the Deputy Commissioner concerned. 2. In terms of the proviso to Article 20(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, stamp duty is chargeable on the amount or value of consideration set forth in the conveyance executed by House Building Co-operative Societies registered under the Karnataka...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »