Karnataka Court April 2003 Judgments
Thanaram Bhati Vs. D. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ250
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. I.A. No. VI is filed for recalling of the order dated 27-6-2002 where-under R.F.A. No. 182 of 1999 came to be disposed of by a considered judgment dismissing the appeal. The suit relates to relief for specific performance of the sale and delivery of suit schedule property. The appellant before this Court is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff's suit for specific performance has been decreed as prayed for. The appeal filed by the defendant is dismissed by this Court. Now, under I.A. No. VI, an application is filed for recall of the order passed in the judgment, dated 27-6-2002 and permit the parties to report the compromise. 2. In the application it is contended that the judgment in the appeal is passed without hearing the appellant. The said submission is incorrect. Para 4 of the judgment in clear terms indicates that both the Counsels for the appellant and the respondent were heard. Therefore, the judgment is passed on merits. 3. After disposal of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Basamma (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Sayamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant380; ILR2003KAR2944; 2003(4)KarLJ422
V.G. Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Gulbarga in R.A. No. 133 of 1982, dated 18-8-1990 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Chincholi in O.S. No. 26 of 1980, dated 20-4-1982.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal are as follows:The parties would be referred to with reference to the rank before the Trial Court. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of ownership, possession and for future mesne profits from the defendant averring that the suit schedule property known as 'TARI HOLA' measuring 3 acres 16 guntas in Sy. No. 197 situated at Chincholi Taluk, Gulbarga District as per the boundary given in the schedule is of the ownership of the plaintiffs. It is averred that one Lingappa was the ancestor of the plaintiffs parent's family. Said Lingappa had three sons Anthappa, Sayanna and Mallappa. Anthappa is the father of the plaintiff and Papamma was the mother of th...
Tag this Judgment!Devarakondappa and anr. Vs. K. Rajeshwari Alias Rajalakshmi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant386; II(2003)DMC821; ILR2003KAR4250; 2003(4)KarLJ541
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is the defendants' revision being aggrieved of the order in P. Mis. No. 9 of 1998 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, dated 9-7-2001 allowing the petition filed under Order 33, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC to sue as indigent person.2. The brief facts are as follows.--The plaintiff being the widow of one D. Ashwini Prakash filed a suit for maintenance and also claiming damages against her in-laws with an application under Order 33, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC praying permission to sue as indigent person. The plaintiff got herself examined as P.W. 1, whereas, the defendant 1 was examined as D.W. 1. The learned Judge considering the evidence of the parties held that the plaintiff has no means. Accordingly, allowed the petition filed under Order 33, Rules 1 and 2 permitting to sue as indigent person. It is this order which is now questioned by the defendants in the present revision.3. The learned Counsel Sri M. Aswathanarayana Reddy fo...
Tag this Judgment!Shivarama Bhat and ors. Vs. Thimma Poojary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant455
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 21-4-1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. That appeal was filed against the order of the Land Tribunal dated 27-5-1988. The Appellate Authority noticed that earlier the petitioners had filed Appeal No. 8/89 challenging the very same order of the Land Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed on 21-2-1989 on the ground of limitation.2. It was contended that the second appeal will not operate as res judicata. The said contention was negatived following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : [1966]3SCR300 Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, wherein it has been held that dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation amounts to final decision confirming the decision of the subordinate Court, on merits. Hence, the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioners for the second time against, the same order, is in accordance with the law laid down by ...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Sharda Maruthi Patil Vs. the Chairman, Local Board Administrative ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2320; 2004(1)KarLJ565
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner-Miss Sharda Maruthi Patil is before me challenging Annexure-H, dated 12-1 -2000 with a further direction to permit the petitioner to work as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in addition to monetary benefits.2. The petitioner was appointed as LDC in the year 1984. She was transferred to Pune on permanent duty basis. Her father, Sri Maruthi Patil was a Sipai in the military service and was a Commandant Officer in the Second World War. He retired from service with injuries to his body and leg amputated and her mother was old lady. In those circumstances, she made a request and her request was accepted and was transferred to Belgaum. She has made some averments/allegations against one Sri R.S. Kahtri, her Principal in the school. According to her, Sri Kahtri developed ill-will against her and went on giving her problems after problems. He apprehended her as lunatic person and she was sent for treatment by the Principal. She could not perform her duties for ...
Tag this Judgment!Ananda Pangala Vs. T.R. Jagannath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3215; 2004(1)KarLJ623
ORDERK. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. All the three petitions are considered together for passing common order, as they arise out of the proceedings in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 126 and 129 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mangalore arising out of the proceedings in P.C.R. No. 251 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Puttur.2. The complainant in P.C.R. No. 251 of 2000 is the petitioner in Cri. P. Nos. 2312 and 2313 of 2002 and the petitioner in Cri. P. No. 2315 of 2002 is the person who lodged FIR in Crime No. 18 of 1998 on the file of Kadaba Police Station, Puttur Circle. The brief facts leading to the case are stated thus:One Kum. Vasanthi, aged about 18 years was found missing from 24-12-1997. Her whereabouts were not known. The father of the deceased lodged a missing complaint before the Sirur Police Station in Cri. Misc. No. 3 of 1998 on 5-1-1998. About 5 months thereafter, skeleton remains of a person were found in Kepukudi Jungle. Near the scene chapp...
Tag this Judgment!M. Basavaiah and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1421; 2003(3)KarLJ189
M.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.1. These appeals filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act are directed against the order dated 6-12-2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 20764 and 9972 of 1993, wherein the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants thereby confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal wherein occupancy rights in respect of lands in S. Nos. 52, 53 and 67 ofMangalavarapet, Channapatna Taluk, had been granted in favour of R-3 herein, challenging the legality and validity of the order of the learned Single Judge.2. We have heard the arguments of both sides.3. Sri T.R. Subbanna, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order of the learned Single Judge in writ petitions is illegal and invalid. The learned Single Judge had not appreciated the facts in issue in the right perspective. The material on record clearly shows that there has been ampl...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Satya Srinath Vs. Syndicate Bank, Rep. by Its Assistant General M ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2605
Nayak, J. 1. The writ petitioner is the writ appellant. The Appellant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.7.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition and holding that the Appellant is not entitled for pension, has preferred this writ appeal. 2. The events leading to the passing of the impugned order were that the petitioner was an employee of Syndicate Bank, the Respondent herein on the ground that the Appellant remained absent unauthorisedly with effect from 11.03.1992 a notice dated 18.11.92 was issued to her calling upon her either to report back for duty or submit explanation for her absence within 30 days, i.e. on or before 21.12.92. The Appellant was also informed that if she failed to comply with the above direction, she would be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank on expiry of 30 days from the date of notice in terms of Clause 17(a) of the V Bipartite Settlement. The Appellant replied to the notice on 17.12....
Tag this Judgment!Central Silk Board Vs. G.S. Shivaprakash (Deceased) by L.R.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ499; (2003)IIILLJ976bKant
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The management of the Central Silk Board, being aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge in G.S. Shivaprakash v. Central Silk Board, Bangalore, 1999(2) Kar. L.J. 175 has preferred this writ appeal. Sri G.S. Shivaprakash, respondent herein, filed the above writ petition praying for the following reliefs:Prayer 'Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records and issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order of like nature as follows.-- (a) Quash the Memorandum No. CSB-17(27)/86-ES-I, dated 9-6-1992 issued by the respondent under the signature of Deputy Secretary (Administration) as per Annexure-A as being illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of the law;(b) Directing the respondent to continue the petitioner in employment as Editor, Indian Silk, in pursuance of the Memorandum No. CSB-17(27)/86-ESM, Volume II, dated 3-6-1992 as per Annexure-B and the acceptance of the petitioner as p...
Tag this Judgment!Mamtaj Vs. Gangaram Baderia, District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3100; ILR2003KAR2053; 2003(3)KarLJ164
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. Smt. Mumtaj, wife of the detenu Badsha alias Basyasab Shaikh alias Kuttewan has filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order dated 12-9-2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Bagalkot and the confirmation order dated 17-9-2002 and the subsequent confirmation order dated 31-10-2002.2. The said detention order passed by the District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot District, with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in gambling profession and from disturbing the public peace and order, under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-grabbers Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Goonda Act'), have been challenged. The detention order dated 12-9-2002 has been approved on 17-9-2002. The detenu made a representation, Annexure-E, which was rejected by the Government vide endorsement dated 2-11-2002 (Annexure-F). It is also state...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »