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.
Neelanagouda Bharamagouda Hanchinamani Vs. Ishwaradhya S. Hiremath and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2109; 2002(2)KarLJ441
ORDER1. Learned Counsel for the 6th respondent filed a memo along with certified copy of the order of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the disobedience of which is complained in this case. The same is taken on record. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 are present. Respondent 4 is not present. Application is filed seeking exemption for the appearance of 4th respondent. The same is allowed and the appearance of 4th respondent is dispensed with. 3. The complainant has got examined himself as P.W. 1 and he was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Respondents have not adduced evidence. Respondents who are present have undertaken to tender unconditional apology by filing affidavits for having conducted the proceedings. 4. The complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not personally served the copy of stay order granted by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on respondents 1 to 5 on 19-8-2000. He has further admitted that prior to 18-8-2000 and after 20-8-2000 he...
S.A. Ramappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1489; 2002(2)KarLJ463
N.K. Patil, J.1. This matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned Counsels appearing on both sides.2. The petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the second respondent. He has sought for writ of certiorari quashing the grant certificate granted vide order dated 3-7-1978 in case No. LND.SR. 1439/66-67 granted by the second respondent. He has also sought for quashing the endorsement dated 12-7-2001 in case No. LND:RUC:14:2001-02 issued by the second respondent -Tahsildar. Further the petitioner has sought for a direction directing the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of land bearing Survey No. 24 of Dasagondanahalli, measuring 1 acre 34 guntas along with the case of the legal representatives of respondent 3, and to dispose of the same afresh after due enquiry.3. The petitioner filed an application for grant of lands measuring 1 acre 34 guntas of land situated at Dasagondanahalli, Doddaballapur Talu...
Shariff M.A. and ors. Vs. Mysore City Corporation and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1673; 2002(4)KarLJ243
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J. 1. The tenants of a commercial premises situate at Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore have filed these writ petitions challenging the notice issued by the Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation purporting to exercise his powers under Section 322(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity), and the order dated 14-1-1999 of the Standing Committee, Mysore City Corporation, passed in appeal, confirming the action taken by the Commissioner. 2. Few facts relevant for the purpose of this case as found from the records are as under:On the Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore which is a busy area, there is situate a commercial-cum-residential building bearing Nos. 209 to 215, 215/1, 216/2 and 216/3 consisting of about 12 shops. Various portions of this building are occupied by the appellants as tenants, doing business. This building had originally belonged to one Atiguppe Suryanarayana Shetty. The said Suryanarayana Shetty sold t...
Gopalakrishna Bhat Vs. Smt. Kamala and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ29
ORDER1. I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate. The respondents have been served and are unrepresented. The short point involved in this petition centres round the question as to whether the Court was justified in permitting the belated amendment to the written statement whereby the petitioner contends that the original defence that was pleaded has been altered/expanded. Even though initially, I was of the view that the cause of action cannot really be said to have been materially changed, the petitioner's learned Advocate points out to me that this amendment has come at a stage when the plaintiffs evidence is complete, that there has been a delay of 6 years and that the effect of it would mean that the plaintiff would have to reopen his evidence as of necessity. His submission is that the original defence must be confinedto the parameters of the original written statement and that on the ground of delay alone, the amendment should not have been permitted. Reliance was placed o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›