Karnataka Court October 2004 Judgments
Gurappa Mallappa and anr. Vs. Jagannath and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant83; ILR2004KAR5127; 2005(1)KarLJ74
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order of the appellate Court setting aside the interlocutory order of the Trial Court granting an order of injunction in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs.2. In my opinion, the impugned order is not a revisable order falling within the ambit of Section 115 of CPC as even if the impugned order had been made in favour of the petitioners/ plaintiffs, it would not have finally disposed of the suit which is pending.3. However, Mr. V.R. Datar, learned Counsel strenuously contends that the impugned proceeding was under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence such a proceeding would fall within the ambit of the 'other proceeding' envisaged under Section 115 of CPC.4. In view of the above, the question that falls for determination in this revision petition is as to the connotation of the expression 'other proceeding' occurring in Section 115 of CPC?5. In my opinion, an appellate proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagawan, Since Dead by His Lrs. and ors. Vs. Dwarakanath and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant108; ILR2005KAR136; 2005(1)KarLJ625
S.B. Majage, J.1. Whether a purchaser of property could be said to have deemed or constructive notice of the right of a person in possession of it or a portion of it and whether relief of specific performance be refused in such a case to that person claiming earlier right over the property, are the short points on which the result of this appeal depends.2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are:(a) The appellant - plaintiff (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiff) brought suit in O.S.No. 40/90 before the Civil Judge Court at Hubli against respondents defendants (hereinafter referred as defendants) for specific performance of contract of sale by registered sale deed stating that on 21.06.1989, the defendants 1 to 3 have entered into an agreement of sale in his favour after receiving Rs. 35,000/- out of consideration of Rs. 80,000/- with regard to suit property, portion of which shown as EFGH (in the plaint sketch filed with the plaint) is in his possession as a tenant, though d...
Tag this Judgment!Prakasha Vs. State by Mahila Police Station
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ1106; II(2005)DMC181; ILR2005KAR521; 2005(1)KarLJ347
A.C. Kabbin, J.1. The accused in S.C. No. 132 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mangalore, has challenged in this appeal, the judgment dated 25-10-2002 by which he was convicted for offences mentioned below and was sentenced to the punishment shown below against each offence:1. For an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC:Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. For an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC:Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.3. For an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act:Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 35,000/-.4. For an offence punishable under Section 4 of the D.P. Act:Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.5. For an offence punishable under...
Tag this Judgment!A.H. Mahalakshmi Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4938; 2005(1)KarLJ88
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. The petitioner appearing for common entrance test conducted by the 2nd respondent for admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 2004-05. It is contended that she had secured a very high rank in the said test. The Counselling was conducted by the 2nd respondent on 14th July 2004 and Petitioner was allotted a seat in Sri Siddartha Medical College, Tumkur. It is her further case that she had paid the fee of Rs. 1,72,000/- as directed by the 2nd respondent on 14.7.2004 which is evidenced by the challan marked at Annexure 'A'. Later she was allotted a seat at 1st respondent - College on 13.9.2004 in the re-counselling. A copy of the admission order dated 13.9.2004 is produced at Annexure 'B' As per the said order of admission, Petitioner was directed to report to the Principal of the 1st respondent College on 28.09.2004. It is the case of the Petitioner that she went to the 1st respondent - College on 28.9.2004. On that day 1st respondent issued an acknowledgmen...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries Vs. Karnataka Sta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: [2005]126CompCas830(Kar); ILR2004KAR5098; 2005(1)KarLJ162; [2005]58SCL287(Kar)
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Company Applications No. 106/2002 and 1795/2003 are filed in Company Petition No. 149/1998.2. The earlier application namely C.A. No. 106/2002 is by the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Government of Karnataka, under the provisions of Rule 6 and 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, praying for permission of the Court to appoint the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, as the Independent Liquidator in place of the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, who had been earlier permitted to be appointed as the Liquidator of the Company in terms of the order dated 2.3.2000 passed by this Court in C.A. No. 56/1999. The reason attributed is that the post of Divisional Commissioner, was about to be abolished and as such in his place, the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad District, Dharwad, may be permitted to be so appointed.3. C.A. No. 1795/2003 is filed subsequently in the very Company Petition purporting to be by the very Company represented by its ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Malligamma @ Malligavva and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by th ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant74; ILR2004KAR5078; 2005(1)KarLJ60
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The first petitioner is suffering from chronic renal failure. The Doctor advised her to go for a kidney transplantation. According to her, her close relatives are not in a position to donate their kidney due to non-matching of their blood group with her blood group.2. Petitioner No.l is a permanent resident of Holalu village of Hadagalli Taluk, Bellary District. According to the first petitioner, the 2nd petitioner is known to her and out of love and affection, the second petitioner voluntarily offered to donate kidney to the first petitioner. The petitioners appeared before the Committee and their depositions were recorded by the committee.3. The second respondent-Committee by its order dated 17.8.2004 as per Annexure-D to the Writ Petition has rejected the request of the petitioners. The Committee has come to the conclusion that the offer made by the second petitioner to donate the kidney as not out of love and affection. Being aggrieved by the order passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Neelagangavva Vs. Basayya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR5118; 2005(1)KarLJ84
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. Claimant No.2 in LAC 16/83 has filed this appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The limited prayer which is sought for by the appellant in this appeal is that she alone is entitled to receive the compensation amount with all benefits in respect of R. Sy. No. 11/A/l of Chikkasangam village.2. Facts in brief are: That certain lands belonging to the appellant and legal representatives of the respondent herein, namely, Sy. Nos. 3/1B measuring 2 acres 28 guntas; Sy. No. 11/A/l measuring 3 acres 10 guntas; Sy. No. ll/A/2 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas; and Sy. No. 11/B measuring 22 guntas was acquired under the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10.10.1990. In pursuance of the said notification, the parties to this appeal ie., the appellant and the original respondent filed claim petitions seeking compensation of Rs. 35,000/- per acre for irrigated lands. The Land Acquisition Officer, after due enquiry, awarded a ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant105; 2005(1)KarLJ70
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. In all these writ petitions the persons who are former Councillor's of Ranebennur City Municipality, some of whom might continue to be so, have challenged the order dated 18-7-2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District, Haveri, as per Annexure-A under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 308 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') determining and fastening the liability of Rs. 61,242/- on each of the petitioner as the sum payable by the petitioners for their negligent act while acting as Councillors and for having caused loss of a sum of Rs. 12,24,843/- to the Municipality.2. These writ petitions are filed challenging this order an a direction for recovery of the amount, inter alia contending that the order is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act; that no proper opportunity had been given; that the Deputy Commissioner has not taken into consideration the explanation that has been offered by the pe...
Tag this Judgment!M. Javerilal Vs. N. Achalraj Jain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ76
ORDERAjit j. Gunjal, J.1. These revision petitions are disposed of by this common order HRRP No. 89 of 2000 is filed by the tenant and HRRP No. 140 of 2000 is filed by the landlord. During the course of this order, the landlord would be referred to as the petitioner and the tenant as the respondent.2. Two eviction petitions were filed in HRC No. 218 of 1997 and HRC No. 217 of 1997. HRC No. 218 of 1997 relates to the first floor and HRC No. 217 of 1997 relates to the ground floor. Both the eviction petitions were filed by the common landlord Under Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 corresponding to Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The learned Trial Judge recorded common evidence in both the eviction petitions as the parties to both the petitions were common. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of material on record granted eviction in respect of ground floor which relates to HRC No. 217 of 1997 against which the tenant has come up in r...
Tag this Judgment!B. Viswanatha Rao Vs. Management of Canara Bank, Head Office and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: [2005(106)FLR320]; 2005(1)KarLJ562; (2005)IILLJ419Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. Petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 16-1-1987 as per Annexure-C where domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid and also the award passed by the Labour Court dated 27-1-1999 upholding the order of punitive discharge passed by the respondent 2.2. Petitioner joined the services of the first respondent-Bank on 1-71971 as a Clerk on probation. He was confirmed. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issue of a chargesheet dated 21-5-1977. Charge against the petitioner was that when he was working in the S.B. department at the Town Hall Branch on 15-3-1974, has falsified the records of the Bank and due to gross negligence, involving the Bank in a serious loss and committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.3. Petitioner filed a detailed statement of objections denying all those allegations. One D.P. Srinivasan was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. No person was appoin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »