Karnataka Court July 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.
H.N. Chandrashekar and anr. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4867; 2003(2)KarLJ635
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1 Petitioners' father Sri Nirvanappa lost the land under Bhadra Reservoir Project and in consideration of the same he was granted land bearing Sy. No. 30 measuring 3 acres in Kenchikoppa Village under the Rehabilitation Scheme. The grant was made at an upset price of Rs. 75.00 per acre. The said grant was in the year 1961-62 and in spite of the payment of upset price saguvali chit was not issued and possession was not given. Therefore, he filed W.P. No. 52 of 1978. The said writ petition was allowed with a direction to consider the case of Nirvanappa and to issue grant certificate within three months. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court saguvali chit was issued on 31-7-1987, mutation has been made out in the name of the petitioners as by that time their father had expired. The third respondent-Erappa who claims to be in unauthorised occupation of the said land challenged the grant in favour of the petitioners' father and also sought for regularisation o...
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant365
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The dispute and related constitutional issues raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition concern the lands and properties held by late Dr. Svetoslav Roerlch Mrs. Devika Rani Roerich. These two legendary figures, being husband and wife, had died respectively on 30-1-1993 and 9-3-1994 leaving behind them invaluable assets in various forms including immovable properties which was commonly known as 'Tataguni Estate'.2. The prayer in the present writ petition is to declare Section 110 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short 'Land Reforms Act') and the Roerich & Devlkarani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 (in short the 'Acquisition Act') as unconstitutional and also to quash the Gazette Notification dt. 18-3-1994 issued by the State Government under Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act, by which exemption granted to the lands used for cultivation of Linaloe trees from operation of the Land Reforms Act has been withdrawn.3. The 1st pe...
K.T. Plantation Private Limited and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2002(6)KarLJ27
ORDER1. The dispute and related constitutional issues raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition concern the lands and properties held by late Dr. Svetoslav Roerich and Smt. Devikarani Roerich. These two legendary figures, being husband and wife, had died respectively on 30-1-1993 and 9-3-1994 leaving behind them invaluable assets in various forms including immovable properties which was commonly known as 'Tataguni Estate'.2. The prayer in the present writ petition is to declare Section 110 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short, the 'Land Reforms Act') and the Roerich and Devikarani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1996 (in short, the 'Acquisition Act') as unconstitutional and also to quash the Gazette Notification, dated 18-3-1994 issued by the State Government under Section 110 of the Land Reforms Act, by which exemption granted to the lands used for cultivation of linaloe trees from operation of the Land Reforms Act hag been withdrawn.3. The 1st...
Annie P. Mathews Vs. Rajimon Abraham
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: AIR2002Kant385; I(2003)DMC582
M.F. Saldana, J. 1. We have heard the appellant's learned counsel who has applied to the Court for disposal of this appeal on the ground that the delay is working very adversely against the interest of the appellant-wife. We have taken note of the facts of this case which are extremely sad, namely, that virtually from the day when the couple got married the respondent husband has been abusing and ill-treating the appellant-wife so much so that the marriage ultimately broke-up and the present appellant-wife filed a matrimonial case in No. 939/1998 before the Family Court at Bangalore under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act praying for dissolution of the marriage. The respondent husband was served before the trial court and he did not contest the proceeding. For the reasons that we shall presently deal with, the Family Court dismissed the petition against which the appellant wife was required to file the present appeal. The respondent has been duly served by all means including paper ...
Smt. Kashibai Ambekar and ors. Vs. Vasanthrao Hanumanthrao Ambekar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR4442; 2002(6)KarLJ470
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. This revision petition is by the plaintiffs challenging the order dated 2-2-2001 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dharwad, in O.S. No. 427 of 1997 on the application (I.A. No. 5) filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2} of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts of the case in brief are.--That the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their half share. It appears that in the said suit the defendant admitted the share of the plaintiffs and on that admission, the plaintiffs got withdrawn the suit. Thereafter, the defendant has filed the application (I.A. No. 5) under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to transpose himself as plaintiff in the suit. Since the said application has been allowed, the petitioners are now before this Court. 3. The only question that arises for my consideration is whether the defendant can maintain the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Proce...
Veerabhadrappa and anr. Vs. Tukaram and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2002
Reported in: 2003ACJ607; 2003(5)KarLJ19
1. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga has while allowing MVC No. 335 of 1989 in part determined an amount of Rs. 36,800/- with interest at 6% per annum as compensation payable to the claimants-appellants in this appeal for the death of late Smt. Ratna Bai who died in a road accident. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded, the appellants have appealed to this Court for a suitable enhancement.2. On 29-6-1989, late Smt. Ratna Bai accompanied by her son Sri Vishwanath were in Gulbarga for medical treatment. While they were walking along the main road in front of the KSRTC Guest House, an autorickshaw bearing registration No. CNP-4163 and being driven by respondent 1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased who sustained multiple injuries. She was shifted to a local hospital where she succumbed to the injuries the same day in the evening. A claim petition for payment of a sum of Rs. 4,15,000/- towards compensation was in due course filed by the husban...
H.M. Basamma (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. the Commissioner of Hindu Religio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: 2002(4)KarLJ535
V.G. Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 28 of 1991 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bellary is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-9-1999.2. The facts of the case in brief leading up to this appeal are as follows: The parties would be referred to with reference to their rank before the Trial Court.O.S. No. 1 of 1977 was filed by H.M. Basamma before the District Judge, Bellary seeking for a declaration that the 'Samadhi' of Jade Thatha situate at Emmiganur Village in Bellary Taluk, colloquially called as 'Shri Jade Thatha Temple', is not a 'temple' within the meaning of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called as 'Act') and not subject to the purview of the Act and for cancelling the order, if necessary, passed by the second defendant, Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious an 'Charitable Endowments, Bellary, dated 24-8-1970 as being nullity and void and without jurisdiction and for an injunctio...
The Executive Engineer, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant61; ILR2002KAR4257; 2002(5)KarLJ530
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. There is delay of 36 days in filing the revision. Notice had been issued to the respondents. Respondents entered their appearance. The matter had been heard earlier and delay has been condoned and adjourned for admission to this day.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-7-2001 passed in M.A. No. 24 of 2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madikeri dismissing the appeal which in turn was against the order dated 8-9-2000 passed in LA. No. III in O.S. No. 92 of 2000, on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madikeri.3. The defendants in the suit are the petitioners before this Court. The suit by the respondent-plaintiff, who is consumer of electrical energy supplied by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, was for an order of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant that the supply of electrical energy was maintained without in...
Chowriappa Constructions, Bangalore and ors. Vs. Embassy Constructions ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ3863; 2002(4)KarLJ532
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The revision filed against the order of the XIV A.C.M.M., Bangalore in C.C. No. 26636 of 2001. The proceedings relate to a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 3. Pursuant to the summons, they appeared before the Court. The Counsel Sri P.H. Ramalingam filed power for the accused and moved the bail application under Section 436 of the Cr. P.C. The Trial Court admitted the accused 1 to 3 to bail on the condition of executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- each with a like surety. However, a concession was given to the accused to offer surety on the next date of hearing. Being aggrieved by the insistence of the surety by the Court in the impugned order, the present revision is filed.2. The Counsel for the petitioners relied on the ruling of this Court in K. Pandarinathan v. V. Raju and Anr., : ILR1997KAR2560 and contended that the insistence of a personal bond by the accused and a surety by the Trial ...
Prof. G.K. Govinda Rao and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3652; 2002(6)KarLJ263
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J. 1. One G.K. Govinda Rao and 11 others who have filed this public interest litigation are alleged to be retired Professors, Journalists and other Dignitaries of the city and also author of the book ,'Vasthu Eshtu Vastava' and they have studied the subject thoroughly. The grievance of the petitioners is that when they came to know about the speech of the Chief Minister, they were shocked to know that whenever there is a new incumbent to the office of the Chief Minister, huge amounts are beingspent for repairs and alteration of the house during the last one decade. It is alleged that 'Vasthu Shastra' has played havoc with the lives of gullible people. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing to furnish full particulars of the renovation and alterations carried out to the designated residence of Chief Minister 'Anugraha' and to publish and furnish to the petitioners the details of telephone calls, the tour programmes, particula...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »