Karnataka Court January 2003 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.
State of Kerala Vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intel ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3210; 2003(4)KarLJ117
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. Sri Dinesh Kumar, Senior Counsel for the first respondent filed statement of objections to the petition.2. The entangled messy facts projects interesting questions of law relating to the propriety and jurisdiction of the petitioner to investigate the crime in question. It is not uncommon to find under the statute a concurrent jurisdiction conferred on several agencies to investigate the crimes. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is one such instance conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the several named authorities to investigate.3. In the present case, the first respondent seized 1.75 kg. of contraband heroin from the accused persons. After completion of investigation, a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. is filed before the Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, which is numbered as Spl. C.C. No. 189 of 1999.4. One P.B. Nawaz Khan, accused 2 challenged the prosecution against him alleging false i...
Smt. K.S. Muddugowramma Vs. P. Suryanarayana (Deceased) by L.Rs.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ87
ORDERA.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.1. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below rejecting petitioner's prayer for eviction of the tenant on the grounds available under Clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the petitioner-landlord has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the revision petition, briefly stated, are as under:(i) The petitioner filed the eviction petition claiming that the respondent was a tenant under her in respect of the petition property on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and he had failed to pay rent of the said property from 1-2-1984 to 30-9-1985 in spite of several demands and legal notice dated 12-6-1985. She further claimed in the petition that the petition premises is required by her for the bona fide use and occupation of herself and her family members. (ii) The learned Munsiff on a detailed examination of the claim of the petitioner and the def...
Corporation of the City of Bangalore and ors. Vs. Smt. Sudha V. Reddy ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR504; 2003(5)KarLJ299
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. A law point of considerable consequence has been agitated in this appeal and having regard to the fact that the fallout would be of considerable importance and applicability in a large number of similarly situated cases, we have heard the learned Counsels representing the contesting parties at considerable depth. The issue involves the interpretation of Section 110(b) of the s Act, 1976. This section exempts certain buildings and lands from property tax and Sub-clause (b) deals with choultries for the occupation of which no rent is charged and choultries, the rent charged for occupation of which is used exclusively for charitable purposes.2. A brief reference to the facts is very essential. The petitioners in W.P. No. 7131 of 1994 (Smt. Sudha V. Reddy and Ors. v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Ors.) : ILR1999KAR3632 are the Trustees of Mr. Justice N.D. Krishna Rao Memorial Trust (Registered), which institution, we are informed is a public charitable trust ...
P.A. Babu Jayaprakash Vs. the Managing Director, Karnataka Soaps and D ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR293]; 2003(1)KarLJ541; (2003)IILLJ884Kant
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition who was formerly working as Sales Supervisor in the establishment of 1st respondent-Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), has in this petition called in question the correctness of the order dated 18th February, 1999 passed by the 3rd respondent, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E to this petition; and also has prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to duty with all consequential benefits including full back wages from the date of order, Annexure-E till the date of reinstatement in the service.2. Facts in few, which are not in serious dispute, may be stated as hereunder:The petitioner was appointed as Sales Supervisor by the 1st respondent-Company by means of its appointment order dated 19th August, 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A to this petition, pursuant to the interview held by the Selection Committee constit...
Bouramma Vs. Siddappa Jeevappa Patarad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant342; I(2003)DMC691; 2003(1)KarLJ581
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the wife who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 6 of 1995 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Bijapur and whose suit for maintenance against the defendant husband came to be dismissed.2. The plaintiff and the defendant were married in the year 1966. They lived together and a daughter was born to the couple. It appears that the defendant contracted a second marriage in the year 1977. Thereafter, the plaintiff has averred that her husband and second wife started ill-treating her, harassing her and threw her out of the house. The plaintiff was forced to seek shelter in her relative's place and as she is unable to support herself in the evening of her life, had approached the Court for grant of maintenance. It was also averred in the plaint that the defendant husband, is a man of means, was owning about seven acres of fertile agricultural land in Sy. No, 730 of Ingleshwar Village, Basavana Bagewadi Taluk and his income was in the range of Rs....
Bangalore Development Authority Vs. P. Anjanappa (Deceased) by L.Rs
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1471; 2003(2)KarLJ250
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioners in Review Petition No. 752 of 2001 claim that they are allottees of sites in RMV II Stage (Gokul II Stage), carved out of lands in Sy. Nos. 25 and 28 of Bhoopasandra Village, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, by the Bangalore Development Authority by their letters of allotment made on 12-9-2000. They claim that they are aggrieved by the orders passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 5069 of 2000, dated 24-1-2001 in confirming the order of temporary injunction dated 23-10-2000 passed by the Court of the XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on I.A. No. II in O.S. No. 5061 of 2000. In this review petition filed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure they are requesting this Court to review the aforesaid order and further allow the prayers made in M.F.A. No. 5069 of 2000 by setting aside the order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court.2. These petitioners were not parties in M.F.A. No. 5069 of 2000. Therefore, they have filed I....
Ashabi Vs. Bashasab Takke and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-2003
Reported in: I(2003)DMC725; 2003(2)KarLJ429
D.V. Sylendra Kumar, J. 1. This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment and decree of the Family Court at Bijapur, dated 1-1-1997, whereby the Family Court dismissed the appellant-plaintiffs claim for maintenance. The appellant-wife had sought for monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- from the defendant-husband on the premise that he has neglected to maintain her; that he has driven her out of the house and also contracted a second marriage and is living with the second wife. The plaintiff also pleaded that she had borne a son to the defendant from out of the marriage and that as the defendant has neglected to take care of them, she is compelled to seek for maintenance through the Court.2. The defendant contested the suit. The marriage between the parties was admitted. The birth of the son was also not disputed. But he denied certain allegations of demand for dowry made in the claim and also denied that the defendant had deserted the plaintiff-wife. It was averred that it was ...
State by Panambur Police Vs. P. Manohara
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC28; 2003CriLJ1002; 2003(2)KarLJ76
M.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/appellant and the learned Counsel Sri S. Vishwajit Shetty for the respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are that prosecution was launched against the respondent in C.C. No. 9194 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, II Court, Mangalore, alleging that he being the driver of the vehicle bearing No. KA-19/585 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner on the National Highway No. 17, near Panambur Circle, Mangalore, and dashed against one Yadhav Bokkapatna who was crossing the road and caused his death. Therefore, charge-sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. When the charges were read over and explained to the respondents, he admitted his guilt. On the basis of this admission of guilt by the respondent on 17-2-1997, the Court passed an order on 10-3-1997 sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sect...
R.V. Kumar Vs. S.S. Jayeesha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: 2003(1)KarLJ461
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short), is by the third respondent in E.P. No. 1 of 2000 before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Somwarpet.2. The Trial Court having dismissed the application filed by the third respondent/revision petitioner which was under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act ('the Act' for short) read with Section 151 of the CPC, the third respondent has come up in revision before this Court.3. The revision petitioner was the successful candidate in the elections held to the Shanivara Santhe Gram Panchayat on 27-2-2000. The election petition had been filed by one of the defeated candidates challenging the election on several grounds.4. The third respondent (returned candidate) had taken up the stand that the election petitioner had not furnished requisite number of copies of the election petition, duly attested under the signature of the petitioner and having ...
Mallamma Vs. Balaji and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-2003
Reported in: II(2003)ACC257; 2004ACJ368; 2003(2)KarLJ112
1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on both sides.2. The claimants in this appeal are the mother of the deceased Bhimaraya, who is said to be a resident of Rawoor Village in Chittapur Taluk, Gulbarga District and respondent 4 is the father of the deceased. The deceased Bhimaraya was aged about 28 years and he was working as an agricultural labourer under one Ramanna S/o. Sheshappa and was getting an income of Rs. 1,500 p.m.3. On a fateful day i.e., on 9-4-1997 in the morning the deceased was taking bullocks of his master Ramanna to plough the lands; at about 6 a.m. when he was so going near Rawoor gate on Chittapur-Shahabad road on the extreme left side, a milk van bearing Reg. No. MH-13-G 0755 came in high-speed and in a rash and negligent manner, which was driven by respondent 1 and dashed against the deceased and the bullocks. Consequently, the deceased Bhimaraya sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and further the bullocks also sustained injuries. The appellant/claima...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »