Karnataka Court February 2002 Judgments

Ramu S. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002(2)KarLJ375

ORDER1. The petitioners are all practicing Advocates. As per the Certificates of Enrolment issued to them by the Karnataka State Bar Council, the date on which they have signed the Roll of the State Bar Council and the deemed date of commencement of their legal practice as Advocate are as follows:W.P. No.NameDate of signing the RollDate on which deemed tohave become an Advocate1054of 2002S.Ramu5-2-199929-11-19971120of 2002T.KShridevi4-9-19984-9-19971121of 2002R.Manjuladevi23-10-199818-10-19971122of 2002R.Rekha6-11-199815-3-19971315of 2002Pramodha9-1-199824-10-19961316of 2002Ganapati29-8-199823-8-19972. The Civil Judges (Junior Division) Selection Committee of High Court of Karnataka ('Selection Committee' for short) issued a notification dated 8-10-2001 inviting applications for recruitment of candidates for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Clause (3) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 prescribes the minimum qualifications for the po...

Holiyappa K. Patil Alias Ajjappa Vs. Lokappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ148

ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner.2. The respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner alleging that two cheques issued by the petitioner were presented to the Bank on 9-5-2000 and received Bank endorsement on 11-5-2000 informing that Account was closed and the cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, he got issued a notice on 12-5-2000 to the petitioner which was refused by the petitioner on 15-5-2000. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint on 24-6-2000. The Court was pleased to take cognizance of the offence and directed to issue notice to the petitioner which order is questioned in this petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the complaint is barred by time. To substantiate this argument, he submitted that the petitioner has refused to receive the notice on 15-5-2000 which solely indicates that the petitioner was not intending to pay the a...

Navjot Kaur Alias Dolly Vs. Ajeet Singh Phull

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2003)DMC275; ILR2002KAR3145; 2002(3)KarLJ592

ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition has sought for quashing of the orders dated 12-3-2001 passed on I.A. III, and the order dated 19-8-2000 passed on the memo (Annexure-G and H respectively) in M.C. No. 307 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore.2. The facts of the case are as follows.-The respondent had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'). In the said petition the petitioner who is the wife has filed an application for interim maintenance and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Act. This application was contested by the respondent-husband by way of filing statement of objections. Before passing any order on the said application, the respondent had filed a memo for withdrawal of the main petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court passed orders rejecting the application for maintenance and l...

Milan Minerals Private Limited and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2002Kant242; 2002(5)KarLJ227

ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for quashing of the proceedings of the State Government seeking approval of the Central Government, for grant of mining lease under Section 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMRD Act, 1957), on the application filed by 4th respondent pursuant to the notification bearing No. DMB/ML/DV/99-5575, dated 15-6-1999, as contrary to law and for other reliefs.2. The facts in these cases are as follows.--An area of 2,560 acres in Hombalghatta, Gollarahalli and other villages were held under mining lease by Sri P.K. Sarangapani Mudaliar. After the expiry of the lease, the State Government issued a notification dated 15-6-1999 published in the Official Gazette for regrant under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner, 4th respondent and 27 other persons filed applications for grant of mining l...

K.M. Kumaraswamy Vs. State by State Vigilance Commission

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002CriLJ3195; 2002(5)KarLJ337

M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. A rather interesting position in law has emerged in this case as will be set out presently. The accused at the relevant time was working as Village Accountant of Veeradevanapura Group Panchayat in Nanjangud Taluk and it is alleged that on 28-3-1985 he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 450/- in consideration for change of khata. This was a case in which the accused is alleged to have demanded Rs.500/- for doing the job from P.W. 2-Sundaramma. According to the complainant, she was doing coolie work and she told the accused that she is so poor that it is impossible for her to produce that amount of money and the accused flatly refused to relent. Thereafter, her brother is supposed to have met the accused again and paid him Rs. 50/- with a promise that he would bring the remaining amount on 28-3-1985. A complaint was lodged with the anti-corruption police and a trap was laid, the currency notes were treated with phenophthalein powder and, the amount wa...

Milan Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for quashing of the proceedings of the State Government seeking approval of the Central Govt., for grant of mining lease under Sec. 5(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMRD Act, 1957), on the application filed by 4th respondent pursuant to the notification bearing No. DMB/ML/DV/99-5575. dated 15-6-1999, as contrary to law and for other reliefs.2. The facts in these cases are as follows :--An area of 2560 acres in Hombalghatta, Gollarahalll and other villages were held under mining lease by Sri. P. K. Sarangapani Mudallar. After the expiry of the lease, the State Government issued a notification dated 15-6-1999 published in the Official Gazette for regrant under Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner. 4th respondent and 27 other persons filed applications for grant of mining lease. I...

Patel Pillanna (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2002KAR1878; 2002(3)KarLJ515

N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 19-6-2001 passed in W.P. No. 12216 of 2000 reviewing the order passed in W.P. No. 38408 of 1999.2. The grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Panchayat was not a necessary party nor the Secretary is authorised to file the writ petition and despite that the learned Single Judge reviewed his own order and restored the writ petition.3. In response to the notice respondent 4 appeared and filed statement of objections denying the allegations as alleged. It is stated that possession of the disputed land has been taken over. It is also stated that resolution dated 5-11-1999 which was produced with the rejoinder pertains to two lands in Sy. Nos. 132 and 133.4. The learned Counsel for respondent 4 submits that as the Amendment Act came into force from 24-9-1984 and within two years from that date the award was passed, considering the same the learned Single Judge found that there is an error apparent on ...

Smt. Bayamma and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ398

1. This intra-Court appeal arises out of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 5550 of 1993. The appellants are the writ petitioners who challenged the orders of the Land Tribunal, Gokak in respect of grant of occupancy rights relating to Block No. 183, measuring 12 acres 21 guntas of Sindikurbeta Village. In the earlier proceedings in Writ Appeal No. 1927 of 1983, it is submitted that the parties in the proceedings had compromised the matter and affidavits are also filed. The writ appeal came to be withdrawn with an understanding that the parties shall before the Land Tribunal enter into a compromise in the terms agreed between them at the stage of writ appeal. The respondents have also filed an affidavit before this Court in the earlier writ appeal that they have entered into a compromise and would make necessary petition before the Land Tribunal and had also averred in the affidavit filed that they are cultivating the land in question as only on mortgage basis and not as tenants. De...

State by Belakavadi Police Vs. Mallesha and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2003)DMC84; 2002(4)KarLJ406

M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel Sri Shivappa who represents the respondents-accused on merits. The allegation against the accused was that Al being the husband and A2 and A3 being the mother and senior uncle of A1 that they had received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- at the time of the marriage of deceased, Mahadevi. On 1-6-1991, Mahadevi suffered serious burn injuries, she was taken to the K.R. Hospital, Mysore on 2-6-1991 and she died on 15-6-1991. On 3-6-1991 the police Head Constable is alleged to have recorded a dying declaration in which he has implicated the accused but that document suffers from a host of legal infirmities as a result of which the Trial Court itself rejected the same. In the absence of any cogent material the Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the 3 accused. It is this order that is assailed through the present appeal. Though we appreciate the strenuous efforts put in by the le...

M.S. Ganesh and ors. Vs. H.K. Subramanya and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2002KAR4123; 2003(5)KarLJ306; (2004)ILLJ246Kant

ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. As all these petitions challenge the common order dated 25-7-1997 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, in Application Nos. 7948 to 7954, 8001, 8002, 8069 to 8078 and 8078-A of 1996 and Application Nos. 19 to 22 of 1997, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.1.1 W.P. Nos. 25521 to 25525, 25527 to 25530, 25533, 25534, 29315, 29540 to 29546, 30455 and 31052 to 31081 and 31399 to 31428 of 1997 are filed by the contract Groups 'C' and 'D' employees who were some of the respondents in the said applications. W.P. Nos. 11576 to 11599 of 1998 are filed by the State and its authorities.1.2 The applicants in the 24 applications before the Tribunal are respectively, the respondents 1 to 24 in W.P. Nos. 25521 to 25525, 25527 to 25530, 25533 and 25534 of 1997, and respondents 3 to 26 in W.P. Nos. 30455 and 31052 to 31081 of 1997 and respondents 1 to 7 in W.P. Nos. 11576 to 11582 of 1998, respondents 1 and 2 in W.P. Nos. 11583 and 11584 of 1998, ...