Karnataka Court June 2002 Judgments

Chowdrani Mahadevan Vs. S. Chandrashekar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2002Kant406

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. At the stage of admission the parties addressed arguments on merits of the appeal. The only short point regarding the legality of the notice issued under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is involved. Hence, the appeal is treated as heard on merits.2. The appellant is the plaintiff. The respondent is the defendant. The suit schedule premises was leased to the respondent by the appellant on a monthly rental basis at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- per month under a written agreement dated 23-6-1994. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent has kept the premises vacant and has not paid rents since 1996. Therefore, notice of termination of tenancy was issued as required under law under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. Thereafter suit came to be filed. The notice according to the records, is issued on 28-10-1999 terminating the tenancy and directing the tenant to hand over possession by 30-11-1999. According to the finding of the trial Court and as per the terms of the agree...

State of Karnataka Vs. Lokesh and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002CriLJ3795

M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. The prosecution had alleged that on the right of 31-5-1998 at about 9 p.m. the 3 accused had inflicted stab injuries on the complainant and the injuries being of some seriousness, he was taken to the hospital and was retained as an impatient for 3 and 1/2 months. The 3 accused were known persons. They were placed under arrest and in the course of investigation certain weapons were also recovered from them. The trial Court adopted an ultra-technical view and held that the offences were not made out and consequently acquitted the accused and the State has challenged the order of acquittal through the present appeal.2. The learned Addl. SPP has submitted that the evidence of the injured complainant who has in terms implicated all the 3 accused corroborated by the medical evidence is alone sufficient to sustain the conviction because there is no valid ground on which this evidence could have been discarded. On the othe...

Siddagangappa Vs. Thimmanna

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2003Kant164

ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26-5-2000 rejecting I. A. XII in O. S. No. 157/96. the plaintiff has presented this revision petition. The said application was filed under Order 23 Rule 1(3) C. P. C. seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under revision. The trial Court observed that recording of evidence was concluded on 4-2-2000 and instead of arguing the case, the plaintiff filed I. A. XI seeking amendment of plaint sketch and the said application was rejected on 9-3-2000. Thereafter I. A. XII was filed. The trial Court found that the technical defect sought to be made-out by the plaintiff in not showing the new house of the defendant having door towards East in the sketch, is not at all necessary to decide the actual dispute relating to the space in front of the houses of both the parties. It was also found that at th...

M.G. Maheshwara Rao and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2002KAR3848; 2004(3)KarLJ187

ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Petitioners 1 to 3 herein were the applicants 1, 2 and 6 in Application Nos. 3582 to 3592 of 1995 and petitioner 4 herein was applicant 3 in Application Nos. 3987 to 3995 of 1995, before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, The respondents 1 to 12 herein were the common respondents in the said two sets of applications before the Tribunal.2. It is stated that petitioners 1 and 2 are working as Senior Assistants, petitioner 4 is working as Assistant and petitioner 3 is working as Junior Assistant in Karnataka Administrative Tribunal ('KAT' for short). According to petitioners, there are two feeder channels cadres to the post of Assistant Registrars. One is the hierarchy from Junior Assistant - Assistant - Senior Assistant - Section Officer/Court Officer to Assistant Registrar. The other is Typist - Stenographer - Junior Judgment Writer - Personal Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer/Personal Secretary to Registrar to Assistant Registrar. The posts of Junior Assistan...

Somanath Vs. Vijayakumar and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ4

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. I.A. I for additional grounds and I.A. II for additional statement of facts are allowed.2. The petitioner-Somanath, s/o Siddagonda Bagalkot, the Chairman, APMC, Bijapur is seeking for the following prayers:(a) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, directing the 5th respondent to allow the application produced at Annexure-G and H pending final disposal of the case filed under Section 17 of the Act for disqualification by the petitioner as per Annexure-G, dated 9-5-2002.(b) A direction to the 5th respondent to complete the disqualification proceedings as against the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two weeks or such time this Hon'ble Court deems fit and no confidence motion initiated as per Annexure-F may be stayed till disposal of the disqualification proceed-* ings.(c) A direction to the 5th respondent to allow the 3rd respondent to participate in the meetings of the APMC, Bijapur.3. The facts are as under.--The petition...

M. Nagaraj Vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2002(95)FLR472]; ILR2002KAR3458; 2002(5)KarLJ185; (2002)IIILLJ370Kant

N.K. Jain, C.J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 15-12-2000 passed in W.P. No. 556 of 1994 connected with W.P. No. 3495 of 1994.2. Since the facts in both the appeals are common and identical, as agreed, they are heard together.3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts. The necessary and relevant facts are, appellant-M. Nagaraj in W.A. No. 646 of 2001 joined the services of Reserve Bank of India, on 1-7-1963 as a Clerk, Grade II and was promoted as Staff Officer in Grade 'A' in the year 1975. He was confirmed on 1-10-1978 and continued to work in the said post, till he was kept under suspension by the 2nd respondent by his order dated 4-7- 1979, in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. The appellant Ramachandra Saale in W.A. No. 687 of 2001, during the relevant point of time was working in the 1st respondent-Bank as Staff Officer, Grade 'A'. He was also kept under suspension by the Manager of the respondent-Bank by or...

Guddappa Fakirappa Madar and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2002(5)KarLJ295

ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. One Fakirappa Madar was the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 14/A measuring 9 acres 29 guntas situated at Nellikoppa Village, Byadagi Taluk, Haveri District. He died in the year 1971. On his death, the third respondent herein made an application to the Revenue Authorities to mutate his name in place of his deceased father as the deceased father left behind the third respondent as the only legal heir. On that basis, the name of third respondent was entered in the mutation register. It continued up to 1986. In the year 1986, on the basis of a consent wardi given on 20-12-1986, the petitioners names were entered in the mutation register and the name of third respondent was deleted. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No. RTS.AP.3/90-91 without filing any application for condoning the delay. The said appeal came to be dismissed in limine as barred by time. Thereafter, the third respondent after a large...

Bhoruka Steel Limited, by Its Managing Director Vs. Misc Limited

Court: Karnataka

ORDERGopala Gowda, J. 1. Under a contract, the respondent herein appears to have supplied imported scrap steel to the petitioner as per a scheme for making into rods, wires etc., for selling in open market and to pay the value of the scrap to the respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner has not accounted for the steel supplied from 22.9.1995 to 27.11.1995 in a total quantity of 39,99,220 metric tones and also not paid the value of the same. Hence, the respondent filed a petition under Sections 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') seeking attachment of the properties of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court passed attachment order. The petitioner filed I.A.V for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent and for dissolution of the order attaching the properties. The Court by its order dated 7.9.1999 dismissed I.A.V and ordered continuance of interim attachment of properties. This revision petition is filed questioning ...

Krishnamurthy Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2002KAR3584; 2002(5)KarLJ248

ORDERS.R. Bannurmath, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 26-6-1992 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub-Division, Tarikere, Chikmagalur District, in No. SC.ST 12/90-91 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) rejecting the application of the petitioner to declare the sale of the land as void and the consequential relief of resumption and restoration under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (for short the 'PTCL Act'), as well as the order dated 8-6-1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, in Appeal No. PTL 27/98-99 rejecting the appeal only on the ground of delay and laches (Annexure-D to the writ petition), the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition. 2. The brief facts, according to the petitioner, are as follows: The petitioner is a resident of Sutha Village, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga District. He belongs to 'Dombaru' caste which is recognised as Scheduled Cas...

K. Doddahanumaiah Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2002KAR3633; 2002(5)KarLJ302

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. With the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner and respondents, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner is assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 15-4-1999 issued by the Tahsildar, Magadi, 2nd respondent and also the final order dated 9-10-2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, 1st respondent herein. The case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturist by profession. He inherited the ancestral property bearing Sy. No. 33 measuring 2 acres 28 guntas situated at Kudlur Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk. The said land was dry land. After investing huge sums of money to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs for digging up borewell, installing submersible pumps, having electricity connection, converted the said land into the garden land and also constructed a farmhouse and residing in the farmhouse. He was doing better agriculture raising garden crops like paddy, ragi, banana, tomato and also eucalyptus trees. I...