Karnataka Court June 2002 Judgments
Sangappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3603; 2002(5)KarLJ257
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. An interesting question is raised in this petition. 2. The petitioner, an agriculturist, is the owner of lands in question. Respondent 3's father, late Bandeppa filed an application in Form 7. The Land Tribunal granted and Form 10 was issued on 8-6-1981 in favour of late Bandeppa. A condition of prohibitory period of alienation was imposed on him. He died leaving behind respondents 3 and 4. According to the petition averments, notwithstanding the non-alienation clause of 15 years, 4th respondent sold the land in favour of respondents 5 to 8 in terms of the sale deed dated 8-2-1993. This according to the petitioner is unsustainable in law. The matter was reported to the Assistant Commissioner. He passed an order holding that the sale is hit by the prohibitory provision of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). He ordered for forfeiture of the land. It was challenged in an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal', for short...
Tag this Judgment!Nagamma Vs. Gurupadappa (Deceased) by L.Rs and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ528
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The revision petitions are filed against the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittapur in Civil Misc. Nos. 2 of 1991 and 1 of 1991 respectively. Both these proceedings arise out of O.S. No. 5 of 1988. The petitioner filed a suit for partition and possession of the suit properties. The suit came to be decreed exparte. The orders in the final decree proceedings was passed on 18-8-1990. During the lifetime of the defendant-Gurupadappa, he riled these petitions to set aside the ex parte decree contending that there is no service of summons on him and he was not aware of the proceedings in the suit and also in the final decree. Before the Trial Court, the parties have led evidence and documentary evidence is also marked. The Trial Court on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, found that there is no service of summons on Gurupadappa and that sufficient cause has been shown for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 o...
Tag this Judgment!Vazeer Vs. the District Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant405
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J.1. Though the matter is posted for orders, as both the sides are served and the dispute in question can be resolved on a short ground, with the consent of both the counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.3. The petitioner had applied to the Authority for the grant of NOC for running a Temporary Touring Cinema Theatre. The NOC has been rejected as per Annexure-D on the ground that the Police Report shows there was some objections from the Public and Wakf Board Committee regarding the functioning of the Cinema Theatre.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that before rejecting his application for grant of NOC, an opportunity should have been given to him to have his say regarding the alleged objections raised.5. Right to run a Cinema Theatre is also a trade or a business under Article 19 of the Constitution. Though the Act does not provide the applicant/objecto...
Tag this Judgment!Gopichander M.L. Vs. Andhra Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)IIILLJ570Kant
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these two writ petitions, they are disposed off by this common order.2. Facts in W.P. No. 12946/1995: Petitioner had joined the services of respondent-Andhra Bank, a body constituted under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, as Probationary-Officer-Grade III on January 5, 1976. While in service, he had earned successive promotions. At the time of filing of this writ petition, he was working as Officer, Middle Management-Grade Scale II.3. While he was working at Jayanagar Branch of the respondent Bank, he was kept under suspension by an order dated July 21, 1986 and subsequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a charge memo dated September 13, 1986. The proceedings culminated in imposing a penalty of 'censure' by the disciplinary authority by an order dated November 7/9, 1994. The disciplinary authority had further ordered tha...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra and ors. Vs. the State Election Commission and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)KarLJ324
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. The petitioners, who are now disqualified from holding the post of members of the Taluk Panchayat, Bangarpet, have filed these petitions challenging the order of the State Election Commission, dated 25-3-2000. 2. The facts in these cases are as follows: The petitioners and others were elected as members of the Taluk Panchayat, Bangarpet. The total number of members of the Taluk Panchayat is 22. Out of 22, 14 persons were elected on Janata Dal ticket, 8 persons were elected on Congress ticket. The Returning Officer issued the calendar of events calling upon the members of the Taluk Panchayat to elect Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha in the meeting held on 17-12-1998. 3. The case of the complainants before the Election Commission is that the Janata Dal, which is a national political party, called for the meeting of all the members elected on Janata Dal ticket to serve whip/direction. It is not in dispute that one Smt. Lalithamma has been nominated as a candidate fo...
Tag this Judgment!Devidas Annappa Shetty (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. the Land Tribunal, Honn ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)KarLJ487
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner-Devidas Annappa Shetty is challenging an order dated 80-11-1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Honnavar bearing No. LRT.SR.37/455/314/643/508/341/744.2. Facts.--The petitioner's predecessor Thimmappa Shetty and the third and fourth respondents' predecessor Lakshman Shetty and fifth respondent's predecessor Manjunath Shetty constitute a joint family. There was a partition in the family in the year 1941. Property belonging to the joint family was divided amongst the respective branches in 3 equal shares in terms of a partition deed dated 23-7-1964. The petitioner's predecessor was allotted 34 guntas of land in Sy. No. 62/1 and the ownership property in Sy. No. 65/3 was allotted to the predecessor of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner continued cultivation of the property during his lifetime. The petitioner is in actual possession and cultivation of the land. The father of the petitioner filed Form 7 claiming occupancy rights. The other respo...
Tag this Judgment!Mallamma Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4253; 2002(5)KarLJ254
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner against whom the respondents 4 to 16 have moved a no-confidence motion is before this Court in this writ petition for a writ . of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 5-4-2002 (Annexure-A) on the ground that the same is in violation of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Motion of No-confidence against Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (for short 'Rules 1994'). 2. Heard the learned Counsels for both parties. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. G. Shanthappa appearing for the respondents 4 to 16 have filed statement of objections inter alia contending that the impugned notice is in accordance with Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Rules. The learned Government Pleader has also secured the records from the 2nd respondent. 4. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties to the writ petition it is appropriate to extract Section 49 which lays down th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Stellar Construction Company and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant6; 2003(1)ARBLR40(Kar); ILR2002KAR4367; 2002(5)KarLJ474
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. This appeal by the State of Karnataka, Union of India and its officers, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-8-1989 passed in O.S. No. 2567 of 1986 by the City Civil Court, Bangalore. 2. The Trial Court having decreed the suit of the plaintiff to a substantial extent, the appellants who are the defendants before the Trial Court, have preferred the above appeal impugning the validity of the judgment and decree. 3. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the parties by their respective ranks in the Court below. 4. The brief facts leading to the above appeal are that the plaintiffs had undertaken contractual work to execute the formation of road on the National Highway No. 4, near Davanagere Town, for the purpose of forming a bypass road to the highway, bypassing the town of Davanagere and for such formation, the work had been entrusted to by the defendants to various contracts. 5. Insofar as the plaintiffs are concerned, the work allotted...
Tag this Judgment!H.P. Lakshmidevaraje Urs Vs. G.P. Asharani Alias Nandini
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant399; I(2003)DMC303; 2002(5)KarLJ280
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25-6-2001 rejecting I.A. No. II in O.S. No. 511 of 1998 passed by the Trial Court, the first defendant has presented this revision petition. The said application was filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and the one pleaded is vague and ambiguous and the suit is not maintainable.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Explanation (c) of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act in support of his contention that the order under revision is bad in law.3. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the order under revision. The Trial Court observed that though the matrimonial dispute is between the husband and wife, the suit is filed by the wife for recovery of movable properties said to have been taken away by the first defendant. Clause (c) of Explanation to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts A...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kumar Alias B.A. Jayakumar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ252; I(2003)DMC606
1. This is one more of the very distressing situations in which the prosecution alleges that the accused; pursuant to some quarrel between the spouses, had doused the cloths of the deceased wife by the name of Laxmi with kerosene oil and set fire to them in their house at about 5 PM on 20-8-1995. The couple had been married for about ten years and the record indicates that the accused was working for the railways, that he took to the habit of drinking and not attending to his duties properly, that he lost his job and that he was thereafter working as a coolie. His wife Laxmi who was the mother of two children apparently used to live part of the time with her mother P.W. 6 Muniyamma. On that day she had come from her mother's place and there was some quarrel between the spouses in the course of which the accused is alleged to have kicked and assaulted Laxmi and then set her clothes on fire. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 who are the neighbours sought to intervene and they maintain that despite knocki...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »