Karnataka Court March 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.
G. Ramappa Vs. H. Maranna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2971; 2002(5)KarLJ282
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is a respondent's revision filed being aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. No. VI in E.E. Misc. No. 1 of 2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Molakalmuru permitting to withdraw the election petition.2. The brief facts are as follows.--The defeated candidate, namely, H. Maranna presented the election petition under Section 15 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 to declare the election of second respondent-G. Ramappa to the post of membership of Devarahalli Gram Panchayat from Devareddihalli Constituency is void and to declare him a duly elected candidate. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 before the Trial Court have filed objection statement contending that the petition is not maintainable as the election petition is not duly attested by the petitioner and also contended that the grounds urged in the election petition are not sustainable, While the proceedings were pending, the defeated candidate Maranna filed LA. No. VI under Order 23, ...
Smt. Chowdamma Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3734; 2002(5)KarLJ492
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned Counsels for the contesting respondents 3(a) and (b) and 4. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 20-7-1991 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South, and the affirmative order dated 29-4-2000 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, rejecting the claim of the petitioner and declaring the sale of the land in dispute in favour of respondents 3 and 4 as void and resumption of the land and returning the same to the petitioner has come up before this Court in the present petition. 3. As per the allegations in the petition, in respect of the land Survey No. 142 (old No. 22/3) of Suragajakkanahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, an area of 2 acres was granted to one Doddajulabhovi in the year 1956-57 under the then existing Dharkhast (Grant) Rules, as the said Doddajulabhovi belonged to Scheduled Caste. Incidentally, the petiti...
Harmonic Foods and anr. Vs. the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: [2002]112CompCas445(Kar); 2002(5)KarLJ559
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the order dated 30-8-2001 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in M.A. No. III of 2001.2. Consequent on the coming into force of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1993'), the suit filed by the respondent 2 for recovery of certain amount in the Civil Court was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. After the transfer of the suit proceedings, the petitioners herein have made an application for retransfer of the proceedings to the Civil Court. The said application was rejected by the Tribunal. As against the said order of rejection of the application for retransfer, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, without considering whether the petitioner is entitled for seeking retransfer of the proceedings on the ground urged before it, has proceeded to dispose off...
S. Umapathy and anr. Vs. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2205; 2003(2)KarLJ472
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioners are before this Court challenging Annexure-G, dated 25-10-1977, Annexure-N, the order dated 13-1-2000 issued by the third respondent to the first petitioner and Annexure-P, the order dated 12-1-2000 issued to the second petitioner. They also seek for a direction to the respondents to pay them four advance increments to which they are entitled to for having acquired additional qualification.2. The first petitioner joined the services as a Junior Assistant in the Karnataka Electricity Board/KPTCL (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') on 18-8-1970. He acquired a degree in arts in the year 1978 and additional degree in law in the year 1991. He was promoted as an Assistant on 10-3-1980. Further, promotion was given to him on 2-6-1999.The second petitioner joined the Board on 29-2-1971 as Junior Assistant and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant. He acquired M.A. degree in the year 1986 and a degree in law in the year 1991. Now he has retired from ...
Ubedulla Vs. Smt. T. Nanmunnisa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2751; II(2002)DMC8; ILR2002KAR1989; 2002(3)KarLJ438
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. The short question which needs consideration in this revision is whether a proceeding initiated under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. by a Muslim woman against her husband is maintainable and whether she is entitled for maintenance as provided under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 ('the Act' for short).2. This question arises in this revision under the following circumstances:A petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. is filed by a Muslim woman claiming certain amount of maintenance against her husband -the petitioner herein. An application I.A. III is filed by the petitioner under Section 3 of the Act praying the Family Court to permit her to prosecute the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. with an undertaking that she would not file any other application for grant of maintenance under any other enactment. It is contended on behalf of the husband that in view of the Act, the petition itself is not maintainable. Even if she ...
K. Narayana Mayya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ369
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner, a party-in-person is questioning Rule 9(1) of the Notification dated 18-7-1996 styled as 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers' (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Rules, 1996', vide Annexure-A. The petitioner is also questioning Instruction 11 of the 'Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers' (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 1996', vide Annexure-B, insofar as it relates to the fixation of date as 1-8-1994 for payment of gratuity as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is also seeking for a direction to recalculate the gratuity payable to the petitioner on the basis of such rules and pay as per 1996 pay scale rules.2. The petitioner entered the service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as an Assistant on 23-5-1958. He became an officer on 29-10-1966 in the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer and thereafter he was designated ...
Chennappa Gowda and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR2917; 2002(6)KarLJ178
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsels for the contesting respondents.2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5-6-1987 passed by the Land Tribunal, Sullia Taluk, insofar as rejection of the claim of the petitioners in respect of 77 cents in the land bearing Sy. No. 179 (179/P1) is concerned, the petitioners have approached this Court in the present writ petition.3. The brief facts necessary for consideration are as follows.--After coming into force the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as amended by Act 1 of 1974 the petitioners filed their application dated 26th August, 1974 in Form 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of the following lands.--(i) Sy. No. 179 - 60 cents;(ii) Sy. No. 186/1B -1 acre 13 cents;(iii) Sy. No. 356/2 - 14 cents.It is to be noted here itself that Sy. No. 179 totally measured 3 acres 47 cents. On earlier occasion by the order dated 20th October, 1981 the Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the petitioners in ...
Madusudan N. Anchan and ors. Vs. the Traffic Manager, New Mangalore Po ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2364; 2002(4)KarLJ476
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J. 1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order. 2. Petitioners in these writ petitions question the legality or otherwise of the orders made by the respondent-New Mangalore Port Trust ('Port Trust' for short) in No. 2/2/2001/TGA/1, dated 21-1-2002. By the said order, the respondent-Port Trust has re-fixed the pay of the petitioners in the post of Tally Clerks and has further directed for recovery of the excess amount paid to these petitioners on the basis of the said re-fixation. 3. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 3222 -to 3248 of 2002 were initially appointed in the Work Charge Establishment of the respondents-New Mangalore Port Trust. They were transferred and appointed as Tally Clerks some time in the year 1980. That appointment was on ad hoc basis and their services came to be regularised by an order dated 6-12-1991. Some of these petitioners are promoted to the...
Nandakishore and ors. Vs. State by Ashoknagar Police, Bangalore and an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2746; 2002(4)KarLJ490
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Heard Sri Ravi B. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.2. The respondent herein being a reputed agriculturist had entered into an agreement with the petitioners who are the directors of M/s. Nath Seeds situated at Aurangabad for supply of tomato seeds on the representation that tomato seeds supplied by them are of good variety and yield good crop to the farmers, etc. On the basis of the representation, the respondent purchased seeds and entered into an agreement with the petitioners. As per the request of the petitioners, the respondent identified the lands and negotiated with the farmers for the purpose of growing the tomato seeds to the extent of 171 acres of land. Accordingly, the petitioners supplied the seeds to the respondent and in turn, the respondent supplied those seeds to the growers. Though the plants came up very well to the satisfaction of the concerned, that there w...
Mallappa Mudakappa Machenhalli Vs. Basavanneppa Veerappa Machenahalli ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-2002
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1923; 2002(6)KarLJ473
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. The present writ petition which arises from C.P. No. 2828 of 1991 filed by the petitioner for considering the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 1989 on the file of the then District Land Appellate Revision Authority, Dharwar. In L.R.R.A. No. 12 of 1987 and to consider the same as writ petition, under Section 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act No. 18 of 1990. 2. At the outset, learned Counsel for contesting respondent has raised the question of maintainability of the civil petition and the writ petition. Since the matter is being disposed of on question of laws regarding maintainability, it is not necessary to mention in detail the facts of the case as to the claim of the petitioner. 3. Suffice it to say that the petitioner herein had filed application in Form 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of 3 lands and the Land Tribunal by the order dated 6-11-1986 allowed the application and declared the petitioner as the occupant and granted him occupanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »