Karnataka Court July 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.
Seshadri Iyengar (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. P.V. Ramadas
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ451
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. All these three revision petitions pertain to the same property bearing No. 24/37, Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, which is the petition schedule premises. Since the parties are also common, these three revision petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner-P.V. Ramadas in H.R.R.P. No. 184 of 2000 is the tenant and deceased K. Seshadri Iyengar, represented by his legal heirs, who are petitioners in H.R.R.P. Nos. 118 and 230 of 2000 is the landlord. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as 'landlord and tenant'.3. The landlord filed petition under Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (now repealed, hereinafter called as the 'Act') seeking eviction of the tenant under Clause (a) on the ground that he is in arrears of rent; under Clause (d) on the ground that the tenant is causing nuisance; and under Clause (h) on the ground that the landlord require the petition schedule premis...
Basappa @ Basavaraj Vs. the State, Gandhi Chowk Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3243; 2003(6)KarLJ64
ORDERRamanna, J.1. This Revision Petition preferred by the revision petitioner - accused No. 10 under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14.12.2000 passed in S.C.No. 210/ 1997 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur, by the impugned order the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner - accused No. 10 under Section 227 Cr.P.C.2. The brief facts leading to this petition is that on 12.8.1996 on the road leading to Vittal Mandir, Bijapur, at about 9.30 a.m. within the jurisdiction of Gandhichowk police station, Bijapur, accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6, armed with deadly weapons, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object to commit the murder of Mahalingappa Veerabhadrappa Patil (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Patil' in short). The revision petitioner - accused No. 10 and accused No.1 being the friend and classmate of accused Nos. 2 to 9 and the deceased intended to take veng...
Y.M. Nagaraja Herekerehally Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1047; 2003(5)KarLJ216
ORDERV.Gopala Gowda, J. 1. Land bearing old Sy. No. 101, new No. 203 measuring 3-00 acres of Hirekerehalli Village in Molakalmuru Taluk was granted in favour of petitioner's father under darkhast on 23-11-1963 with a condition that it shall not be sold within 15 years. However, the grantee sold the land in the year 1966 to one Smt. Thimmakka. But the said sale was held null and void under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act by an order dated 11-6-1981. Instead of restoring the land to the grantee, granted in favour of 4th respondent by the Tahsildar on 29-12-1984. Since the original grantee died, his son, the petitioner herein, approached the Assistant Commissioner seeking restoration of the land. The Assistant Commissioner by his order at Annexure-A, dated 25-1-2002 set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 16-10-1984 and directed restoration of the land to the petitioner. In the appeal preferred against the...
Smt. Narasamma Vs. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ299
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are claiming to be the holders of an agreement executed by the landowners agreeing to sell certain lands in their favour for consideration. Before the performance of the contract as per the above said agreement by either of the parties, the lands in question were acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act. In view of this acquisition of the lands there cannot be any specific performance of the contract by the landowner even assuming that the petitioners were to file suits for specific performance of the contract.2. The Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of the preliminary notification issued under the above said enactment has passed an award determining the market value of the lands in question. Subsequent to the passing of the award, the petitioners have made application for reference under Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act ...
Smt. Narasamma and anr. Vs. the Karnataka Industrial Area Development ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4462
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are claiming to be the holders of an agreement executed by the land owners to sell certain lands in their favour for consideration. Before the performance of the contract as per the above said agreement by either of the parties, the lands in question were acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act In view of this acquisition of the lands there cannot be any specific performance of the contract by the land owner even assuming that the petitioners were to file suits for specific performance of the contract.2. The Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of the preliminary notification issued under the above said enactment has passed an award determining the market value of the lands in question. Subsequent to the passing of the award, the petitioners have made application for reference under Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civi...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. M. Keshava Raj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant109; 2004(1)ARBLR507(Kar)
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 20th June, 2000 passed in Arbitration Suit No. 6 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the VI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. By the impugned judgment and order, the Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act and Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.2. The facts of the case in brief be noted first and they are as follows : The respondent herein is a Class-1 Contractor and an agreement was executed between the respondent and the appellant, whereby the respondent was entrusted the work of construction of permanent bus-station at Shidlaghatta in Kolar District under Contract No. 20/93-94, dated 23-9-1994. The cost of the work was Rs. 28.60 lakhs and the stipulated period for completion of the ...
Abdulaziz Mohammad Isaq Kothiwale (since deceased by L.R's.) Vs. Ismai ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: AIR2004Kant211
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in R. A. No. 29/1991 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.), Belgaum, arising out of the Judgment and Decree passed in O. S. No. 391/1983 renumbered as O. S. No. 538/ 1999 on the file of II Addl. Munsiff, Belgaum.2. The appellants are the legal representatives of the second defendant. The first respondent plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale in respect of suit schedule house property executed by the first defendant. Earlier to agreement for sale, the suit property is mortgaged in favour of the wife of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has taken a portion of the property on lease from his wife as a tenant. An agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant under Ex. P. 1 whereunder the first defendant agreed to sell the suit properly for a consideration of Rs. 22,000/-and an advance of Rs. 2,000/- was paid. The first defendant was o...
State Vs. Raju, S/O Hanumappa Reddy and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ980
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Pursuant to notice having been issued to the respondents, we have heard the learned counsel on merits and reviewed the record. The trial Court has convicted both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324, I.P.C. but has extended to them the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. There is not one word of reasoning or justification as to why the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act has been extended. The whole purpose of invoking the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act is, in deserving cases to save the accused from a jail sentence or a fine because the nature and circumstances of the case are such that even though technically a conviction has to be recorded, the Court genuinely feels that neither of the punishments are awardable. Also, it is very necessary for us to record that this is a special provision of which the benefit is extended provided the accused has, what one calls, a really clean record and this is a singular incid...
Vikrant Transport Co. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (int-i)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: [2006]146STC76(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is before me seeking for the following reliefs:(a) Quash the endorsement No. CTO(INT)I/2000-01 dated February 27, 2003 issued by the respondent (annexure E);(b) Direct the respondent to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,03,896 as directed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals and Audit), Mangalore, vide order dated December 5, 2002 in KST.AP.507/1999-2000 (annexure B) along with interest at 12 per cent per annum; and(c) Grant such other relief as deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of equity and justice.2. Petitioner-dealer, suffered an order Under Section 28-A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 dated 'Nil'. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals and Audit), Mangalore. The appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and quashed the penalty levied on the petitioner. The appellate au...
Kenchappa and anr. Vs. V. Jayalakshmamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-2003
Reported in: 2005ACJ290
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal and the accompanying cross-objections arise out of the judgment and award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolar whereby M.V.C. No. 303 of 1990 has been allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 1,49,500 with interest at 9 per cent per annum awarded as compensation for the death of late Narayanaswamy in a road accident. While the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle have assailed the correctness of the award, the cross-objections filed by the legal heirs of the deceased seek a suitable enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal.2. The deceased Narayanaswamy was riding a tractor-trailer driven by the appellant lant No. 2 which met with an accident on 18.10.1989 near Sugatur village in Sidlaghatta taluk of Kolar District. The injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident were fatal culminating in the filing of a claim petition which was registered as M.V.C. No. 303 of 1990 by the Tribunal at Kolar. The case of the claimants in the said cl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »