Karnataka Court April 2003 Judgments
Dr. Rajaratan Basavanneppa Ghanti and anr. Vs. Chandrasekhar Mahadevap ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2123; 2003(4)KarLJ329
ORDERPadmaraj, J. 1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the case records and also the narration of facts made in the Revision Petition. The grievance of the petitioner in this Revision Petition is that the mandate of Order 39, Rule 3A of CPC has been flouted by the Trial Court. 2. It is needless to point that there is a statutory obligation cast on the Court to pass Final Order on the application with in 30 days in view of the provisions contained in Order 39, Rule 3A of CPC. The Court cannot bypass such rule which mandates the Court to give valid reasons for not complying with the said requirement of law. In case, where the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3A is violated, the aggrieved party shall file an appeal seeking appropriate relief and if any such appeal is preferred, the Appellate Court shall be obliged to take note of the omission on the part of the subordinate Court to complying with the provisions contained in Order 39 Rule 3A of CP...
Tag this Judgment!Sham Prasad Bekal and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: II(2003)DMC685; 2003(3)KarLJ368
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This is one of those extraordinary cases where the husband and the mother-in-law of the deceased who were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), seek the father of the deceased P.W. 1 and the brother of the deceased P.W. 4 and the other witnesses to the prosecution P.Ws. 5 and 6 to be arrayed as accused along with them under the provisions of the Act. The Trial Court having rejected the same, the petitioners are before this Court in revision.2. The facts of the case as succinctly set out by Mr. S.J. Chouta, Counsel for the accused are briefly as follows.-The petitioners are accused in S.C. No. 50 of 2001. Charges have been framed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges. They ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Chandrashekar B. Kambara Vs. Bangalore University, Rep. by Its Reg ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2125
ORDERVishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition is the former Vice-Chancellor of Kannada University, Hampi at Vidyaranya in the State of Karnataka. In this petition, he has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12th November 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-0 according sanction for payment of pension and fixing his pension at Rs. 2,650/- p.m. with effect from 1st March 1998 on the basis that he retired in the grade of a Reader in the 1st respondent -University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University').2. The facts in brief which may be relevant for disposal of this petition may be stated as hereunder:The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Kannada in the University on 21st July 1975. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Reader in the University with effect from 29th May 1981. When he was working as a Reader in the University, keeping in mind the academic achievements of the petitioner in the field of Kannada Folklore and Drama and several posi...
Tag this Judgment!Doddamahadevaiah Vs. New Mangalore Port Trust, by Its Secretary and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR2324
Nayak, J. 1. Both these writ appeals are preferred against the same order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.3.1999 in W.P. No. 19846/1996. Hence both the writ appeals were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The short question that arises for our decision is whether the selection and appointment of Sri Doddamahadevaiah, who is the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2219 of 1999 to the post of Deputy Traffic Manager by the management of the New Mangalore Port Trust, Mangalore (for short 'the management) is in accordance with law or not. 3. The facts are not in controversy. The feeder cadre to the promotional post of Deputy Traffic Manager is Assistant Traffic Manager. The appellant Doddamahadevaiah and appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2255 of 1989, namely, A. Sundara Raman belong to SC community. In the final seniority list of Assistant Traffic Managers, Doddamahadevaiah is placed at Sl. No. 8, whereas Sundara Raman is placed at Sl. No. 2. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sumathi and anr. Vs. Vittala Kanchan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR131
Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. This appeal arises out of judgment and decree passed by Addl. Civil Judge, Sr.Divn. Udupi, Dakshina Kannada in R.A.No. 36/1988 arising out of judgment and decree passed by Addl. Munsiff and JMFC, in O.S.No. 225/84.2. The appellants who are the plaintiffs filed a suit for delivery of possession of suit schedule house consisting of two tenements and recovery of mesne profits. The plaintiffs contended that the suit house situated in survey No. 64/2 of Ambalpady village in Udupi Taluk along with agricultural land was granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of the father of the plaintiffs by name Raju Poojary. The said house was leased in favour of the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. During the life time, Raju Poojary executed a Will bequeathing the land and the said house in favour of the plaintiffs. Raju Poojary died on 21.7.1999. The plaintiffs issued a notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act, to seek possession of the same.3. The defendant in the written statement...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Parvathibai Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ6
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. The claimants as also the Gulbarga Development Authority have both filed appeals in respect of the enhancement allowed by the Reference Court in relation to LAC Nos. 57 and 58 of 1992. Two areas comprising of 18 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No. 49 and 11 acres 12 guntas in Sy. No. 50 of Badepur Extension, Gulbarga were acquired vide preliminary notification dated 8-9-1988 for purposes of forming house sites. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation computed at Rs. 15,500/- per acre and the claimants had approached the Reference Court for enhancement to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs per acre, the principal ground being that in the case of certain other sales that have taken place in the area, the prices varied from Rs. 8 to Rs. 12.50 ps. per sq. ft. in various instances, but the real ground that was urged very strongly was the fact that these lands are located in the proximity of the Gulbarga-Sedam Road and Gulbarga Ring Road, wherein the entire area has been full...
Tag this Judgment!Siddaramappa Ningappa Totagi and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ89
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 31-3-1988 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bilagi have filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bagalkot, in L.R.A. No. 39 of 1988. When the said appeal was pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority, in view of the amendment to the Land Reforms Act, the constitution of Appellate Authority was abolished and parties were permitted to file necessary application under Section 17 of the Amended Act, 1990. Accordingly, the petitioners filed civil petition before this Court in C.P. No. 12282 of 1991. After notice, the said civil petition was converted into present writ petition.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for respondent 6(A) and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 at a considerable length of time.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal is contrary to the relevant provis...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Panduranga Shet Vs. S.N. Vijayalaxmi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant357; I(2004)DMC118; ILR2003KAR1852; 2003(3)KarLJ247
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is by the husband who had preferred M.C. No. 126 of 1996 before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge at Mysore praying for a decree of divorce in his favour as against the respondent-wife and for dissolution of their marriage which had been solemnised on 26-5-1991 on the ground of cruelty on the part of the wife and also on the ground that the respondent-wife is a person suffering from schizophrenia and the mental disorder which she suffers intermittently was of such kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot be reasonably expected to live with the respondent. 2. The Trial Court which looked into the petition having not agreed with the petitioner and having declined to grant the relief, the husband is in appeal before us. 3. Brief facts leading to the petition and the appeal are that the parties who follow Hindu customs and rituals became husband and wife as per the marriage performed in acco...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Krishnamurthy Vs. Vokkaligara Sangha and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1931; 2003(4)KarLJ106
ORDERVeerabhadraiah, J. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved of the judgment passed in M.A (EAT) No. 38/2000, by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 6.11.2000, dismissing the appeal has come up with this revision.2. The brief facts are as follows:The petitioner Shri S.G. Krishnamurthy was appointed on 24.7.1990 as a Physical Education Instructor in the Management of vokkaligara Sangha and posted to work in the Junior College. Later on, he was transferred to the High School in the place of respondent No. 2. It is in so far as the transfer is concerned, the petitioner has questioned the said order before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, in M.A. (EAT) No. 38/2000. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that it does not amount to reduction in rank, secondly no appeal lies against the order of transfer. It is this order which is now questioned by the petitioner in the present revision.3. The learned Counsel Shri K. Sridhar for the petitioner contended that the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Akhtar HussaIn Delvi Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Dep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant388; ILR2003KAR2137; 2003(4)KarLJ217
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J. 1. The petitioner is an allopathic medical practitioner practising medicine at Bangalore. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a declaration declaring that it is legally permissible for allopathic medical practitioners to prescribe drugs and medicines of ayurvedic origin which have been subjected to clinical and/or other tests and have consequently been accepted by the profession of allopathic medical practice and also for a direction not to take any penal action against him for prescribing any drug or medicine to his patients. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, once the petitioner has been registered as a medical practitioner he is entitled to prescribe any medical including medicine of ayurvedic origin since there is no prohibition either under the Indian medicine Central Council Act, 1970 ( for short 'the Central Act') or under the Karnataka Ayurvedic, Naturopathy, Siddha, Unani and Yoga Practitioners...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »