Karnataka Court September 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.
P. Shiva Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR3806
ORDERRaveendran, J 1. The petitioner is a graduate. He joined the Railways as temporary waterman on 25-6-1985. His temporary status was confirmed during 1989. He was empanelled as Box Boy on 14-4-1991. 2. Rule 127 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual ['IREManual' for short], provides that vacancies in the category of Ticket Collector [a group-C post] will have to be filled, two-thirds by direct recruitment and one-third by promotion by process of selection from the eligible group-D category staff. As per circular instructions, selection for promotion is on the basis of merit, which is assessed on the basis of written examination [50 marks], interview [25 marks] and service record [25 marks]. Only those who obtain 50% marks in the written test are eligible for interview. 3. In February 2001, fourth respondent invited application from in-service candidates for appointment to the post of Ticket Collector, under the one-third promotion quota. It is stated that petitioner was one amon...
Motisham Mohammed Ismail Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ4763; ILR2003KAR4059; 2003(6)KarLJ375
ORDERVeerabhadraiah, J. 1. This revision is by the accused being aggrieved of the order passed in CC No. 2121/2002 dated 21.2.2003 by the Ist Addl. CMM Bangalore City, framing charges for the offence under Section 420 IPC and under Section 12(i)(b) of Passport Act, 1967. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The accused was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 420 IPC and under Section 12(i)(b) of Passport Act, 1967 on the allegation that with dishonest intention of cheating, furnished false information about his real date of birth, residential address and willfully suppressed the material information about his arrest and conviction and sentence of imprisonment, induced the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai and obtained a passport bearing No. A. 741209 on 11.4.1997and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and under Section 12(i)(b) of Passport Act, 1967. OrigIn ally the charge sheet came to be filed before the First Additional Chief Metropolitan Mag...
Prabhakar Y.D. and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(5)KarLJ514
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is seeking for the following prayers:1. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-D insofar as it pertains to the insistence of submission of fresh application and fresh licence fee during the period mentioned under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the Act.2. Issue a writ of mandamus prohibiting the respondents from insisting upon submission of fresh application and fresh licence fee during the period mentioned under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the Act and the provision thereunder is concerned.2. The first petitioner has obtained training for driving motor vehicle from the second petitioner. He has obtained learner's licence in Form 3 attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. After completion of the training, he applied for issue of a driving licence in Form 4 of the Act. He has also paid the prescribed fee under Rule 32 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Thereafter, he underwent a competence test conducted by the concerned officer attac...
Tanibai Ramchandra Patil Vs. State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Rev ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4056
ORDERGopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioner is questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 30.4.2003 passed by Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the legal representatives of deceased respondents 3 to 5 in respect of Sy. Nos. 463/2 and 463/3 of Bidakihal village. 2. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and one Keshava Nimbalkar were cultivating the lands prior to 1958 and on 23.7.1958 the 3rd respondent and widow of Keshava Nimbalkar had executed Surrender Deed and pursuant to the same their names had been deleted by M.E.No. 1623 and the name of the landlady was entered in the revenue records from 1965-66 onwards. The copies of Record of Rights are produced as Annexure-B and C series. It is contended that without considering the said important documents the land tribunal erroneously granted occupancy rights. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions reported in : AIR1979Kant211 , : [1969]3SCR309 , . 3. I have perused the impu...
Mahadev Jyoti Umrani Vs. Smt. Sumitra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: I(2004)DMC398; ILR2004KAR512; 2003(6)KarLJ323
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant (husband) and respondent (wife) were respectively the petitioner and respondent in M.C. No. 61 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikkodi, filed under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 seeking a decree for divorce. The relevant portion of the petition relating to Court fee and valuation is extracted below:'Fixed Court fee of Rs. 100/- is paid for this petition as per the Schedule II, Article I of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, as amended upto date'.2. After contest, the said petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an miscellaneous appeal on 9-10-2000 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Belgaum. As the office raised an objection in regard to maintainability, the appeal was not numbered. The objection was that having regard to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Parashuram Rao Anantha Rao Pise v. Smt. Pratibha Parashu...
H.L. Narayanachar Vs. Revappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4248; 2004(1)KarLJ559
ORDERGopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy.No. 484 measuring 9-00 acres situated in Amalapur village in Hospet Taluk. By an order dated 18.8.1981 occupancy rights was granted in favour of the petitioner for 9-00 acres of land. By the impugned order at Annexure-B dated 29.6.2002, the order dated 18.8.1981 is modified and occupancy right is granted to the petitioner only for 4-00 acres and the remaining 5-00 acres is granted to respondents 1 to 3 jointly. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned order. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 also filed application-seeking registration of occupancy rights of the same land to an extent of 5-00 acres. Their claim was rejected by the land tribunal by an order-dated 11.9.1986. The same was challenged in R.A.No. 192/87, which was later numbered as W.P.No. 30270/98. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 7.7.1999 quashing the Order dated 11.9.1986 of the land tribunal and the matter was remitted to...
State by Narona Police Station Vs. Siddappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ186
1. We have heard three learned Counsels at length, in the course of which, we have examined the appeal on merits and have also had an occasion to read the records.2. The principal submission on behalf of the appellant-State is that the Trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3, who happened to be the father and brother of the deceased, in the light of the fact that the medical evidence does support the oral evidence, that the reason for acquittal are weak and unsustainable and consequently, the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered.3. The respondents 1, 3 and 4 are represented by their learned Advocate Smt. Manjula N. Tejaswi and so far as the remaining respondents, namely, respondents 2 and 5 are concerned, we were required to appoint the learned Advocate Sri Somashekar Angadi, as Amiens Curiae Counsel. Both the learned Counsels have strongly supported the order of acquittal and the principal argument canvassed by them is that the eye-witnesses have une...
P. Surya Prakash Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: 2004(1)KarLJ248
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. I.A. Nos. I to III are allowed. Delay is condoned, abatement is set aside and the legal representatives of deceased 3rd respondent are allowed to come on record.2. The prayer in this writ petition filed by the purchaser of the land is to quash the impugned orders at Annexures-B and C. In Annexure-A, dated 17-7-1997, the Assistant Commissioner held that the sale of land in Sy. No. 19 of Huralihally Village in Tarikere Taluk as null and void and directed resumption and restoration of the same to the grantee. The said order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in Annexure-C, dated 8-6-1999.3. The land was granted to the 3rd respondent on 4-10-1973 in darkhast. Saguvali Chit was issued on 10-3-1975 with a non-alienation clause for 15 years. Despite such non-alienation clause, the grantee sold the land to the petitioner in the year 1990. Since, the sale of the land was before the expiry of 15 years, within the non-alienation period, the Assistant Commissioner h...
Tata Consultancy Services Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-01-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR674
Shylendra Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner has sought for quashing of three demand notices under Annexures G, H and J whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay certain amounts of additional stamp duty payable under Section 3-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short) on the premise that such stamp duty paid in respect of three transactions referred to in the demand notices was less than what was actually due under Section 3-B of the Act and the petitioner was required to make good the difference.2. Petitioner being aggrieved by this demand notice, has approached this Court for relief on the premise that the demand is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, but in fact is in contravention of a Notification dated 16.6.1999 issued by the Government in exercise of its power under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act and these demand notices are required to be quashed and the petitioner is not liable to make good this amount.3. The State Government has been conferred the power to re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›