Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(2)KarLJ62
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. Though this petition is posted for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.2. A few facts which are not in dispute and which may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as hereunder:The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in National College of Education, Shimoga, which was being managed by the 4th respondent-Society, on 5th August, 1968. The Additional Director, Department of State Education, Research and Training, by means of his order dated 11th October, 1968, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to the petition, has approved the appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer in the National College of Education, Shimoga,' with effect from 5th August, 1.968. When the petitioner was serving at the National College of Education, Shimoga, he was sent on deputation to Vivekananda College of Education, Arasikere, on 14...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant142
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. A decree holder is before me challenging an order dated 18-7-2002 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division). Bagalkot in Execution Petition No. 108 of 2002. 2. An award was passed in favour of one Mallappa Kuri in LAC No. 266 of 1996. Dyamawwa is wife of Mallappa Kuri, She filed an Execution Petition seeking execution of the award and decree dated 15-9-2000 passed in LAC No. 266 of 1996. An application filed by her was considered by the learned Judge. After considering the same, learned Judge has chosen to following order. 'I.A. No. 1, Under Order 22, Rules 2 and 3, C.P.C. is allowed. No order as to cost is passed. Applicant--LR of the deceased awardee can seek execution of the award/decree passed in LAC. 266/96 only on production of succession certificate.' Petitioner is aggrieved only with regard to an order of production of succession certificate in this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends before me that there is no n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR575; 2003(2)KarLJ216
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgments and decrees in O.S. Nos. 798, 795, 1069, 796 and 797 of 1996, wherein, while the plaintiff is common, the defendants are different. The issues that were framed for determination by the Trial Court in all the suits are common as the pleadings indicate that the relationship between the parties are almost identical. The judgments which were rendered on 24-8-1998 in all the suits are almost identical. The submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the appellant and the respondents are common to all the appeals and accordingly, we are disposing of these appeals by this common judgment. 2. The plaintiff had brought the suit for specific performance praying for directions to the defendants to execute the sale deed to be registered by them in their favour in respect of the suit schedule properties and the suits having been dismissed are in appeal before us. 3. The pleadings in all the suits insofar as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003ACJ1616
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned advocates for the contesting parties on merits. The insurance company, namely, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has assailed the order dated 19.3.1996 in M.V.C. No. 95 of 1995 whereby the M.A.C.T. has held the appellants liable to the extent of Rs. 3,10,500 plus interest. The first submission canvassed by appellant's learned advocate is that there is a serious defect in the original claim petition because he points out that the claim can only be sustained provided it has been directed against the owner of the vehicle and secondly provided negligence is established. Appellant's learned advocate submits that this is a case in which the owner of the motor tanker in question, namely, CNP 3751 has not been made a party to the proceeding and what is submitted is that the liability of the insurance company is only a vicarious liability and not a primary liability. In other words, what the appellant's learned advocate submits is that even if the ot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(1)KarLJ465
K. Bhaktavatsala, J. 1. The appellant, who is a Civil Judge of Senior Division Cadre, unsuccessful in W.P. No. 35051 of 1996, is before us challenging the order of dismissal of writ petition in No. 35051 of 1996 by order dated 7-4-1999 (Kazi Mohd. Muzeebulla v. The High Court of Karnataka and Anr., 1999(3) Kar. L.J. 550 : ILR 1999 Kar. 2413) on the file of learned Single Judge of this Court.2. The respondents are represented by Sri G. Nagarajulu Naidu, Additional Government Advocate.3. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the appellant is hereinafter referred to as the 'delinquent'.4. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ appeal may be stated as under.-The respondent 1 on the administrative side had initiated domestic enquiry proceedings against the delinquent by issuing a charge memo dated 18-3-1992. The charges levelled against the delinquent were that when he was a Civil Judge at Gadag during the year 1991, with ulterior motive of conferri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : III(2003)BC20; 2003(1)KarLJ585
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing No. 189, Sy. No. 4/1, Binnamangala Manavartha Kaval Village, K.R. Puram, Bangalore. His wife-R. Mallika was a partner of the 3rd respondent-M/s. British Instrumentation Systems. The firm was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 11,50,000/- by the Karnataka State Financial Corporation (KSFC). For the due repayment of the said loan, petitioner stood as a guarantor and the property in question was furnished as a collateral security. When the firm defaulted in paying the loan, the KSFC issued a certificate addressed to the Deputy Commissioner bringing to his knowledge the debt due by the firm and the tact of the petitioner standing as a guarantor by furnishing immovable property as collateral security. On the basis of the said certificate, the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of powers under the Karnataka Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity), ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1383; 2003(2)KarLJ617
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 4-4-2002 passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Senior Division), Mangalore, in P.C. No. 21 of 1999 practically recalling its earlier order dated 7-12-2001. The respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC. On receipt of the complaint, the same was referred for investigation to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. On investigation, the policesubmitted their 'B' report. When the 'B' report was placed before the learned Magistrate, on 7-12-2001 holding that no objections or protest petition is filed by the complainant against the acceptance of 'B' report, accepted the final report and stated that Tile shall stand closed'. Thereafter, on coming to know of this order, the complainant moved the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(5)KarLJ296
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present writ petition has been filed in public interest by certain residents of Saunders Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore. Their grouse is that all of a sudden certain persons belonging to muslim community started constructing illegally a mosque at Property No. 4, Saunders Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore. Their further grievance is that at the said mosque, while making prayers, they use electrical equipments like mike and loudspeakers, thereby causing noise pollution in the area.2. So far as the first grievance is concerned, admittedly, one Nimra Islamic Welfare Trust, who has been impleaded as 4th respondent, is the owner of the property in question, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 22-11-1989 and 11-11-1991. So far as the second grievance is concerned, it will be proper here to cull out the relevant provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (in short, 'the rules'), which have been framed exhaustively under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(2)KarLJ48
ORDERB. Padmaraj, J.1. The application filed by the legal representatives of the defendant 2 under Order 9, Rule 7 of the CPC to permit them to appear to defend in the case having been allowed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff by his power of attorney holder is in revision before this Court.2. It appears that the original defendant 2 had died on 13-5-2002 and notice to his legal representatives was issued in the suit and since they did not appear, the suit was adjourned after declaring them ex parte. Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, they appeared and made an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the CPC to permit them to appear and defend in the case. The Court below allowed the application, obviously with an intent to afford them an opportunity to resist the claim of the plaintiff. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that the ex parte order only covers the period during which the defendant was actually absent and it did not act as a bar to his resuming appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR3045; 2003(2)KarLJ270
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner/husband has opposed the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C., claiming maintenance from the petitioner and orders passed thereon,3. Though the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was not disputed, the only ground of opposing the maintenance application by the petitioner was that it was an attitude of the wife in not co-operating with the petitioner to lead marital life and as such after about two years of the marriage, the petitioner along with lour elders of his community went to the parental house of the respondent at Muddebihal and in spite of request made by all, as the respondent refused to come and live with the petitioner, he pronounced 'talaq' three times and thereafter after coming back to Sindhagi, his place of residence, also issued 'talaq' notice through his Counsel. As such it is contended that in view of the provisions of the Muslim Wom...
Tag this Judgment!