Karnataka Court February 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ghatge Patil Transport Limited, Kolhapur Vs. State of Karnataka and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2088; 2002(2)KarLJ292
Kumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. All the appellants are tenants except the appellant in W.A. No. 62 of 1999 is a Charitable Trust. However, all the appellants challenge the constitutional validity of Section 2(7)(b)(iii) and (iv) and the Explanation thereto of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 17th of December, 1997 disposed of a batch of writ petitions upholding the constitutional validity of the impugned sections.3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge these writ appeals have been filed.4. These writ appeals appear to be an exercise in futility since the introduction of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Rent Act received the assent of the President on 22nd day of November, 2001 (Karnataka Act No. 34 of 2001). It was published in the Gazette on 27th of November, 2001 and came into force by a Notification dated 5-12-2001.5. Section 70 of the Rent Act repeals the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act No. 22 of 1961), Sectio...
Ms. Kalaivani A. and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1558; 2002(2)KarLJ499
Kumar Rajaratham, J.1. The appellants being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of the respondent 2 in not extending the tenure as draughtsman have filed these writ appeals.2. Both these appeals relate to a common order passed by the respondent 2 and accordingly a common order is passed in the writ appeals.3. One Mr. P.V. Shivakumar, petitioner in W.P. No. 18523 of 1998 and one Ms. Kalaivani, petitioner in W.P. No. 19148 of 1998 have challenged the order of the respondent 2. dated 24-7-1998 (B.V. Shivakumar v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1999(2) Kar. L.J. 342) , in not extending the tenure as Draughtsman in the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BMRDA').4. The facts very briefly are.--The appellant-Kalaivani belong to a Schedule Caste Community and was a diploma holder in Civil Engineering. The appellant-P.V. Shivakumar was also a diploma holder in Civil Engineering. Both of them were appointed as draught...
State by Mico Layout Police Station Vs. Devaraj Alias Ramashankarappa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2299; I(2003)DMC104; 2002(5)KarLJ333
1. We have pointed out to the learned State Public Prosecutor that even though these appeals are directed against a common judgment that there were two Sessions case Nos. 282 of 1993 and 116 of 1995 against different accused persons and these two appeals are directed against the acquittal order passed in those proceedings. Accordingly, the office shall renumber the appeal as 463 of 2002 along with 1688 of 2001.2. We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor on merits at considerable length. Undoubtedly, we share the concern expressed by the learned Counsel that this is a case in which a young woman has been brutally done to death in a horrifying manner and there appears to be also an attempt thereafter to mislead the authority that she had committed suicide by hanging the body. The principal difficulty that has surfaced in this case is that the investigation has been not only slow but thoroughly inefficient to the point of negligence. While the medical evidence conclusively establ...
State Through Viveknagar Police, Bangalore Vs. C. Shivashankara
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)KarLJ567
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel who represents the respondent-accused. This is one more case where the prosecution alleges that the death of deceased Saraswathi was dowry related, the allegation being that the accused is supposed to have been demanding that in addition to whatever was received at the time of the marriage that she should secure for him a motor-cycle and a share in the house property of her father and that these should be made over to the accused husband. The couple were married for about 3 years and there is one daughter bom out of the wedlock. According to the prosecution, the accused respondent-husband was responsible for having poured kerosene on the cloths of the deceased Saraswathi and set her on fire on 13-4-1991 at about 4 P.M. The admitted position is that Saraswathi sustained 100% burn injuries and that she did not survive the incident. Consequently, this is one case in which there is no ...
State Through City Police Inspector Vs. Jattappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ350
1. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the learned Counsel who represents the respondents-accused who are the original accused 2 to 4 before the Trial Court. The case against accused 1 was separated because he was apparently absconding. The allegation was that at around midnight on 13-9-1994, the present three accused along with accused 1-Vishnu had gone to the residence of deceased Nagappa, the reason being that some altercation had taken place between the parties earlier that day in the course of the Ganapati procession. The accused are alleged to have knocked at the door and P.W. 1-Sumithra who is the wife of the deceased Nagappa opened the door. The accused called Nagappa out and in fact, virtually dragged him out, tore his shirt and an altercation took place between the four accused and Nagappa. At the end of this altercation, accused 1 inflicted a stab injury on the abdomen of Nagappa after which they all ran away from that place. Dimension wise, the inj...
Balaram Cine Publicities, Bangalore Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1690; 2002(2)KarLJ371
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. Though the matter is listed in preliminary hearing, by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties to the lis, it is taken up for final hearing.2. Petitioner is an Advertising Agency. It is carrying on business in outdoor advertisement within the limits of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.3. Petitioner by its application dated 8-11-2001 had approached the respondent-authorities for grant of permission for erecting of a hoarding on a private land i.e., near R.V. Road, Basavanagudi. Along with the application, petitioner had also enclosed the tax paid receipt, no objection certificate issued by the owner, sketch, affidavit, etc. The request made in the application is rejected by the respondent-Commissioner by his order dated 22-12-2001; but has communicated the same to the petitioner on 27-12-2001. Aggrieved by the rejection of his request made in the application dated 8-11-2001 and aggrieved by the endorsement issued on 27-12-2001, petitioner is before th...
Narasimhaiah Vs. State by Inspector of Police, H and B Squad, C.O.D., ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ4795; ILR2002KAR3157; 2002(2)KarLJ408
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.1. Heard arguments of the learned Counsels for both sides.2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner-Narasimhaiah prays:'.......that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records inPCR No. 461 of 1993 which has been presently numbered as C.C. No. 16457 of 1998 pending on the file of the learned 7th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City and further be pleased to reverse and set aside the order dated 4-5-1998 passed in the case, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 193, 465, 323, 376, 109, 114, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the basis of the final report submitted by the 1st respondent herein and further be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in the case in the ends of justice'.3. Certain undisputed facts leading to filing of this petition may be stated as under:Petitioner is accused 7 in the said C.C. No. 16457 of 1998 pending on the file of the Court below. The char...
The Mysore Paper Mills Limited, Bhadravathi Vs. G. Shekar Alias Gyana ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR387]; ILR2002KAR1069; 2002(2)KarLJ469; (2002)IILLJ235Kant
N.K. Jain, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 19-10-2001 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 13169 of 2001 wherein the learned Single Judge while setting aside the grant of 50% back wages, ordered that the workman is entitled for wages from the date of award i.e., 27-12-2000 till the date of reinstatement and enhanced the litigation costs from Rs. 3,OOOA to Rs. 10,000/-.2. It is alleged by the appellant-Management that respondent-workman was charge-sheeted for certain misconduct under Clause XIV(14) and (47) of the Standing Orders. On enquiry he was found guilty of assaulting his superior official and therefore an order of dismissal was issued to the workman. The workman challenged the dismissal under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court after recording evidence allowed the application, setting aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages and costs of Rs. 3,000/-. The ...
R. Varadaraj Vs. Smt. V. Nirmala
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant241; II(2002)DMC120; 2002(2)KarLJ460
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This revision petition originally filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act and later on sought to be converted into a writ petition under Section 151 of the CPC is directed against the order passed on an interlocutory application in a pending proceedings in M.C. No. 808 of 1999 on the file of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order wherein interim maintenance has been fixed in favour of the respondent.3. Sri Vishwanatha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has no other alternative remedy. As such, the revision petition has to be entertained. The learned Counsel has brought to the notice of the Court the following decisions of this Court:(i) T.V. Satyanarayana v. Subba Aruna Meenakshi : ILR1988KAR1074 ; (ii) Smt. Shashi Sharma alias Seema v Praveen Sharma and Anr. : ILR1997KAR609 ; (iii) Sateppa Basappa v Ku. Gee...
Riyaz Khan and ors. Vs. Modi Mohammed Ismail and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant3; ILR2002KAR3369; 2002(3)KarLJ551
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. In this revision petition, which has been filed by the plaintiffs, the crucial question to be decided is that if a document tendered in evidence is marked as 'subject to objections' on the ground of deficient stamp duty, whether the Court can subsequently direct for payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty under the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act').2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit in O.S. No. 6674 of 1998 on the file of the 5th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. This suit has been filed for a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Lawfulness of his possession over the property was sought to be justified by the plaintiffs on the basis of a contract of sale dated 28-2-1997. The plaintiff/petitioner tendered this document as an evidence but its admissibility was objected by the defendants on the ground that it was not duly stamped. The Court marked the document as Ex. P. 2 subject to objections b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »