Karnataka Court January 2002 Judgments
Shivanand S. Patil Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3013; 2002(2)KarLJ156
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. With the consent of learned Counsels for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the notification dated 6-12-2000 in No. RD 10 LBJ 2000 issued by 1st respondent (Annexure-A). Further he sought for a direction to respondent 1 to reconstitute the Committee strictly in accordance with the Act and Rules by issuing a mandamus.3. The petitioner is the member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly representing Thikota Constituency in Bijapur District. Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') which has been inserted to the Act No. 2 of 1991 provides for regularisation of unauthorised occupation through the Committee. The Committee constituted under the said section has power to grant the land to the persons who are found to be eligible. Further it is stated, Chapter 13-A of the Rules has also been inserted subsequently, under which the rules have been framed for regular...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Vijaya Kumar Vs. Deputy Conservator of Forest, Hassan Division, H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1375; 2002(2)KarLJ537
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the authorized Officer, Hassan Division, Hassan dated 15-12-1995 in Case No. CI.Amo.CR. 55/89-90 confirmed in Cri. A. No. 4 of 1996, dated 25-6-1997 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan. The authorized officer - Deputy Conservator of Forest, Hassan Division, by the impugned order confiscated the lorry bearing Registration No. CTS 9243 claimed to be the property of the petitioner which order is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:The lorry bearing Registration No. CTS 9243 which was in the ownership of the petitioner was taken on hire for the purpose of transporting oranges. It is the case of the petitioner that the driver and the cleaner of the said lorry came and informed on the evening of 31-12-1989 that somebody committed theft of the lorry. Accordingly, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional po...
Tag this Judgment!Ravindran Pillai K. Vs. Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ91
A.M. Farooq, J.1. The petitioner was working in National Mineral Development Corporation (N.M.D.C.) from June 14, 1967 which was taken over by the first respondent-company and the petitioner was absorbed into the respondent-company on July 12, 1976 and he was made a Technician Grade II on October 24, 1980 and on March 31, 1984 he was upgraded to Technician Grade I. According to the petitioner he was eligible for promotion on seniority basis and he had therefore made representations to the first respondent company seeking promotion, the respondent-company instead of promoting him has promoted his juniors, respondents 2 and 3 as Foreman overlooking the seniority of the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore, prayed for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider his case for promotion to the post of Foreman (Technical) Grade I in the pay scale of Rs. 950-50-1, 250-55-1, 690/- and for a direction to promote the petitioner from September 1, 1987, when his juniors, respondents 2 and 3 w...
Tag this Judgment!K.B. Gurappa Gowda and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)KarLJ66
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. The petitioners are all elected members of the Committee of management of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Sakleshpur As per the list of events they were all declared elected by the Returning Officer on 6-4-1997. The results of the said election was published in the notification dated 11-4-1997. But for one reason or the other, the State Government did not constitute the Committee by calling the meeting. Ultimately, on the writ petition filed by some persons, the State Government directed the Tahsildar to take steps to constitute the Committee of elected members of the Market Committee. Pursuant to that the Committee was constituted on 30-4-1998. In view of this constitution the petitioners have filed this petition for a direction to issue notification to the effect that they are entitled to be the members for a period of five years from 30-4-1998, i.e., the date on which the committee was constituted.2. Section 38 of the Karnataka Agricultural Pr...
Tag this Judgment!iranna Venkappa Sakhare and anr. Vs. Shantabai Tukaram Sakhare and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ416
V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The appellants were the plaintiffs and respondents were defendants in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties are referred to as in the Trial Court.2. Plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 204 of 1985 for partition of 1/3rd share and 1/6th share for the deceased, 9th respondent, who was the 3rd plaintiff in the suit in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit was filed on the plea that the property was acquired out of joint family nucleus. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the suit schedule property is not the joint family property. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues. Both the parties led evidence by examining witnesses and producing documents. On appreciation of the material evidence on record, the Trial Court by its judgment dated 30-1-1993 decreed the suit. In the appeal filed by the defendants in R.A. No. 19 of 1993, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside and the s...
Tag this Judgment!Saptagiri Complex, Bangalore and ors. Vs. Bhupathi Naidu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1460; 2002(2)KarLJ159
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. House Rent Revision Petition No. 1591 of 1996 is filed by the landlord, who lost some of the grounds of eviction i.e., under Section 21(1)(a), (h) and (p) of the Act. So far as House Rent Revision Petition No. 1546 of 1996 it is filed by the tenant against whom an eviction order is made by the Trial Court under Section 21(1)(j) of the Act.2. These two revision petitions arise out of one and the same judgment and order.3. During the pendency of these two revision petitions, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 i.e., Karnataka Act 34 of 2001 has come into force with effect from 31-12-2001.4. A memo was filed by the Counsel for the landlord contending that in view of the repealing of the old Karnataka Rent Control Act one has to look into Section 70(2) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, which is a savings clause in the new Act. He further laid stress on Section 70(2)(b) and (c) and also Section 2(3)(g) of the new Act.5. Section 70(2)(a) reads as under:'(a) All proceedings...
Tag this Judgment!Malatesh Vs. Maqboolahmad and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant207; ILR2002KAR2634; 2002(2)KarLJ559
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J. 1. The petitioner who is an elected candidate in the Taluk Savanur Panchayat election held on 6-6-2000 has questioned the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haveri, declining to reject the election petition filed by the respondent 1 in this petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The respondent I has raised the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in view of Section 132(2) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1.993 (for short 'the Act'). 2. 1 have heard Sri F.V. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.B. Datar, the learned Senior Counsel who was requested to intervene also ably assisted this Court in view of the important question involved in this case and also heard Sri V.V. Gangadhar, the learned Counsel for the respondent 1 and the Government Advocate for respondent 2. The assistance rendered by Sri H.B. Datar is placed on record. 3. The...
Tag this Judgment!H.A. Manjunatha Bhatta Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1820; 2002(4)KarLJ174
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the orders passed by the 4th respondent in case No. RA 13/2000-01, dated 19-9-2000 confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 5-7-1993 in case No. NCR 2276/91-92 and the order passed by the 3rd respondent in case No. BAHU 3:98-99, dated 20-3-2000.2. The petitioner is a resident of Neelandur, Haraveri Village and his house is surrounded by the Government land in Sy. No. 160 of the said village. He has been cultivating the portion of the said land measuring 5 acres and 12 guntas for the last 20 years. Accordingly, he has filed an application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the said land before the Competent Authority. The Land Grant Committee has considered the application of the petitioner and rejected the application filed by him in view of Rule 108(i) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules (for short the 'Rules') on the ground that the petitioner's income exceeds more than Rs. 25,...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Appu Rao Vs. Padmavathamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR798; 2002(2)KarLJ137
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This petition under Section 115 of the CPC is preferred by the tenant being aggrieved by the order dated 4th December, 2000 passed by the Court below declining to entertain the revision petition filed against the order dated 10-8-2000 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hassan in H.R.C. No. 10 of 1993.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these:Respondent-landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) before the H.R.C. Court. The H.R.C. Court after hearing, allowed the petition under Clauses (a) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. Being aggrieved, by the said order of eviction the petitioner-tenant preferred revision before the Court below challenging the eviction order. In revision, the respondent-landlady filed an application under Section 29(1) of the Act before the Court below praying for stopping of the further proceedings. The Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayanagar Educational Trust (Regd.), Bangalore Vs. the Karnataka Sta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant123; ILR2002KAR1231; 2002(2)KarLJ296
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner-Trust calls in question the correctness and validity of the order dated 9-6-2000 (produced at Annexure-P), passed by the respondent-Board and also the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment), Government of Karnataka, in Appeal No. 5 of 2000, dated 11-5-2000 (produced as Annexure-Z).2. The facts leading to the prayers sought for in the writ petition in brief are these:The petitioner claims that it is a registered Trust constituted with the object of imparting education by setting up schools, colleges, technical institutions etc., and it is recognised as a minority educational institution by the Government of Karnataka vide letter dated 13/16-8-1990 bearing No. ED 13 SMC 88 issued by the Education Department, produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition. The petitioner with a view to establish a medical college under the name and style of M/s. Infant Jesus Medical College a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »