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.
Vasanthakumar Shetty Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3717; 2003(3)KarLJ102
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. In some of the petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 12(j) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act'). Hence, I propose to deal with the contention regarding the validity of Section 12(j) of the Act.2. Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, has been enacted by the State of Karnataka in view of the constitutional mandate under the Constitution 73rd Amendment Act, 1992. The object of the amendment; is to establish a three tier Panchayat Raj system in the State with elected bodies at the Grama, Taluka and District levels, in keeping with the Constitution amendment relating to Panchayats for greater participation of the people and more effective implementation of rural development programmes and to function as units of local self-Government. This Act, came into force with effect from 10-5-1993 in the State of Karnataka.3. Section 12 of the Act provides for 'Disqualification for members' for being chosen and ...
Rocklines Constructions Vs. Smt. Trupti K. Patel
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant73; 2003(1)ARBLR222(Kar); ILR2004KAR325
K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. This appeal filed against the order passed by the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on issue No. 7 in O.S. No. 3390/97. The appellant is the plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The defendant is the owner of a peace of land. The plaintiff is a builder and developer entered into an agreement with the defendant for construction of a complex at his cost and after completion of the construction, it was agreed that the 60% of the built up area has to be taken over by the builder as his own property and to deal with the same in the manner he wishes. The balance of 50% of the constructed property had to be delivered to the owner. Under the agreement certain stipulations are also made regarding the reimbursement, the cost of construction, if construction area exceeds and the area contemplated under the agreement. The agreemen...
Linga Bhatta Alias Thammaiah and ors. Vs. Saravana Enterprises and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Kant128
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal arises out of the order passed in Misc. 89/87 filed in Ex. Case No. 51/86. The execution proceedings are pursuant to the decree passed in O.S. No. 65/88 of the file of the Civil Judge, Mandya.2. It has been a torturous litigation for the parties and in particular to the appellants who are litigating as LRs. of the original plaintiff one Linga Bhatta. It appears that the original plaintiff has bountifully left a legacy of perennial litigation for his third generation. Be it as it may, this appeal poses an interesting question of law about the validity and effect of attachment of property in execution of a decree with reference to the provisions contained in Order 38, Rule 11 and Order 21, Rule 57, CPC.3. The original plaintiff successfully obtained a decree for recovery of money against the husband of the second respondent in a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and odd with costs and interest. The suit was decreed on 16-1-1970, followed by an execution in Ex. Case No....
Sachchidananda Swamigalu Sri Guru Honnappa Devaru Vs. State of Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3902; 2003(3)KarLJ258
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 10 acres in Survey No. 193 and 3 acres 34 guntas in Survey No. 207 situated at Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said lands were proposed for acquisition in the preliminary notification dated nil, gazetted on 31-8-1989 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, along with other lands. This notification was followed by a final notification dated 12-10-1990 issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. These two notifications were questioned by the petitioner in W.P. No. 1704 of 1997 before this Court. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 10-10-1998. This order was again challenged by the petitioner in W.A. No. 4412 of 1998. The Division Bench by its order dated 16-10-1998 quashed the final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, reserving liberty to the authorities to proceed with the acquisition proceedings by passi...
In Re: Ujwal Shetty and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: II(2002)DMC556; 2003(3)KarLJ20
1. A rather unfortunate situation has arisen in this case where, a young couple both of whom are professionals presented a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, to the Family Court praying for dissolution of their marriage which had been solemnised on 9-5-2001. Under Section 13-B there is a bar to the presentation of the petition, unless one year has expire4 since the date of the marriage. Section 14 however prescribes that if it is a case of exceptional hardship or, on the other hand, if it is a situation of grave depravity etc., that the parties may apply to the Court for waiver of this condition in which case, the petition can be presented earlier.2. The petition under Section 13-B was presented before the Family Court on 27-9-2001 which is hardly four months after the marriage was solemnised. An application was filed under Section 14 of the Act, setting out certain very valid reasons why the Court should be pleased to allow the parties to present the petition prema...
S.N. Manjunath and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3978; 2002(4)KarLJ520
ORDERA.V. Srivastava Reddy, J.1. In this writ petition preferred by the constituents of the Sadali Gram Panchayat the prayer is to quash the proceedings of the meeting conducted on 22-9-2001 by the Tahsildar, third respondent, in which the sixth respondent was unanimously elected as Adhyaksha of the Panchayat.2. The main grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that, the meeting conducted by the third respondent, prescribed officer, in which the sixth respondent was unanimously elected lacked the quorum required for such a meeting as prescribed under Section 53(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('the Act' for short). The Gram Panchayat of Sadali consists of 14 elected members. Respondent 5 was the Adhyaksha of the said Gram Panchayat. She submitted her resignation to the post of Adhyaksha on 21-8-2001 to the second respondent. Consequently, the second respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur Sub-Division, Chikkaballapur, Kolar District issued the notificatio...
Abdul Rahimansaheb Vs. Puttawwa (Deceased) by L.R.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3713; 2002(5)KarLJ385
A.M. Farooq, J.1. This is a second appeal filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 582 of 1993 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharwad and it is directed against the confirming judgment in R.A. No. 49 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwad.2. The brief facts of the case was that the plaintiff filed the suit seeking possession of the suit schedule property on the ground that the defendant had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff and the defendant had filed a suit in O.S. No. 60 of 1980 for specific performance of the agreement and the suit was partly decreed directing the plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- with interest. That the defendant/appellant herein challenged the decree in R.A. No. 88 of 1982 which was dismissed and thereafter, the appellant challenged the same in R.S.A. No. 967 of 1993 which was also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the lower Courts.3. The defendant mainly co...
Jayaganesh Beedu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3689; 2002(4)KarLJ446
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is working as Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) in the 3rd respondent-New Mangalore Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Tort Trust'). In this petition he has made three prayers. Firstly, he has prayed for striking down 'New Mangalore Port Trust (Recruitment of Heads of Department) Regulations, 2001' (hereinafter referred to as the regulations') insofar as it provides for the method of selection by 'composite recruitment' to the post of Chief Mechanical Engineer on the ground that it is arbitrary and ultra vires of Constitution of India. Secondly, he has prayed for a declaration that the selection of the 5th respondent to the post of Chief Mechanical Engineer on the establishment of the 3rd respondent-Port Trust as illegal; and thirdly, he has prayed for a direction to the Selection Committee constituted for selection to the post of Chief Mechanical Engineer to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment....
Smt. Savitha Vs. the Commissioner and Director of Food and Civil Suppl ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: ILR2002KAR3725; 2002(5)KarLJ83
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, Davanagere, had issued a notification dated 16-2-1999 inviting applications from the persons interested for grant of authorisation for distribution of the essential commodities under the provisions of the PDS Control Order in Kadaranayakanahalli, Davanagere District. Petitioner was one of the applicants. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 30-4-1999, has granted authorisation in favour of the petitioner for distribution of the essential commodities under the PDS Control Order. He has allotted nearly 269 cards to the petitioner.2. Aggrieved by the order made by the Deputy Commissioner, 4th respondent-Society has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. In the appeal the primary contention of the petitioner was that the Society cannot be an aggrieved person and therefore the Appellate Authority cannot entertain the appeal and decide the same one way or the other. The Commissioner who is the Appellate Author...
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. H.V. Shantharam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Kar)114; ILR2003KAR1877; [2003]260ITR156(KAR); [2003]260ITR156(Karn)
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition is the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order dated June 17, 2002, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous Petition No. 54 of 2002, a copy of which has been produced as annexure H to this petition.2. In this petition, Shri Indra Kumar, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department, challenging the correctness of the impugned order, mainly made three submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the order impugned is liable to be quashed on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in the purported exercise of power conferred on it under Sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Secondly, he submitted that the said order suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the said order came to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »