Karnataka Court November 2004 Judgments
Furkhan Ali Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-2004
Reported in: 2005(4)KarLJ168
ORDERR. Gururajan, J. 1. All these petitions are filed by students seeking a direction directing the 2nd respondent to allot seats to the petitioners in the 3rd respondent-College.2. In W.P. No. 43830 of 2004 the prayer is slightly modified. Facts, grounds and the law in all these cases are common. Matters were heard by clubbing all these petitions by this Court and a common order is passed.3. Facts in brief are as under.--Petitioner, Sandeep in W.P. No. 43629 of 2004 appeared for CET examination and he secured medical rank of 12777. He is qualified and eligible for admission to the MBBS course. He belongs to 3-A category. He appeared for Counselling on 14-9-2004 and on 26-9-2004. He was unsuccessful in getting admission under 60% Government quota seats in terms of a formula evolved between the Government and the management of private medical colleges. The 3rd respondent-College was not included in seat matrix published by the 2nd respondent in view of the fact that the Medical Council...
Tag this Judgment!Doddamma Vs. Muniyamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR568; 2005(1)KarLJ503
V.G. Sabhahit, J.1. These appeals by the plaintiff are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn.) Bangalore, in R.A.No. 207/97 and 2/98 dated 18.12.99 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Bangalore, in O.S.No. 50/87 dated 26.11.1997 and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto these appeals with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows:The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds averring that one Buddappa. The grandfather of the plaintiff had three sons by name Thimmappa, Thayappa and Junjappa. They had ancestral properties and were living together enjoying the ancestral properties. After some time Junjappa the youngest son of Buddappa took his share in the joint family property and started living separately. The other two sons Thimmapp...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Rajanna, Since Dead by His Lrs. and ors. Vs. K.S. Lingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant161; ILR2005KAR388
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision petition is by the judgment Debtors. By the impugned order the executing Court has dismissed IA No. 3 filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors(tenants) to dismiss the execution petition in Execution case No. 1227/02.2. Heard Sri G.S. Visveshwara, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. P.D. Surana, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the impugned order of the executing Court.3. The Execution petition was filed pursuant to the eviction decree passed in HRC No. 99/1994 which was affirmed in HRRP No. 169/98 by granting time till 31.12.02 to vacate the premises. The petitioners/judgment debtors filed the aforesaid application-IA. 3 on the ground that the eviction decree had become unexecutable in view of the fresh lease deed dated 1.1.2003 granting lease for a period of one year from 1.1.2003. On a consideration of the matter, the executing court has dismissed the said application by the order impugned herein....
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Rajanna (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. K.S. Lingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ467
ORDERH.G. Ramesh, J.1. This revision petition is by the judgment-debtors. By the impugned order, the executing Court has dismissed LA. No. 3 filed by the petitioners/judgment-debtors (tenants) to dismiss the execution petition in Execution case No. 1227 of 2002.2. Heard Sri G.S. Visveshwara, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri P.D. Surana, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the impugned order of the executing Court.3. The execution petition was filed pursuant to the eviction decree passed in HRC No. 99 of 1994 which was affirmed in HRRP No. 169 of 1998 by granting time till 31-12-2002 to vacate the premises. The petitioners/judgment-debtors filed the aforesaid application-I.A. No. 3 on the ground that the eviction decree had become unexecutable in view of the fresh lease deed dated 1-1-2003 granting lease for a period of one year from 1-1-2003. On a consideration of the matter, the executing Court has dismissed the said application by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanthabai B. Bohi Vs. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-24-2004
Reported in: 2005(2)KarLJ264
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This is the case of an Adhyaksha, who has lost her post, as a motion expressing lack of confidence was carried by the requisite number of members of the Chincholi Taluk Panchayat, who has approached this Court for relief inter alia contending that the procedure followed for fixing the date of meeting and conducting the special meeting was not in consonance with the relevant provisions viz., Section 141(2)(a) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings in the special meeting held on 18-11-2004 and for other incidental relief.2. Sri Kiran, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner though was the Adhyaksha of the Panchayat, was totally kept in dark with regard to either convening of the meeting or the holding of the meeting; that the petitioner was never given any requisition for convening a special meeting of the Panchayat; that even without any failure on the part of the Adhyaksha, Upad...
Tag this Judgment!National Textile Corporation (Apkk and M) Limited Vs. the Commissioner ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: [2005(104)FLR1024]; ILR2005KAR269; 2005(2)KarLJ155; (2005)IILLJ978Kant
S.R. Nayak, J.1. The Management of the National Textile Corporation (APKK & M)Limited (for short 'the Management') being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.12.2001 in Writ Petition Nos. 23665 of 2000 c/w 534 of 1999, has preferred these two writ appeals.2. The workmen made an application before the Commissioner of Labour who is the delegate of the Government of Karnataka which is the 'appropriate Government under-section (1) of Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') claiming lay-off compensation under the provisions of Sub-sections (8) and (10) of Section 25M r/w Section 25C of the Act. The application was opposed by the Management contending that the workmen were not laid off and, therefore, they are not entitled to the relief claimed in the application. Despite the above plea taken by the Management, the Commissioner proceeded to adjudicate upon the merits of the matter and granted the relief. That led to the Management preferr...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Yallappa Wagmode and anr. Vs. Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ528
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioners have approached this Court praying for issue of a writ of mandamus in respect of a representation dated 26-2-2004 (copy at Annexure-B) requesting the respondent-Hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation to grant certain extent of land said to be located in front of the petitioners' house, which it appears had been acquired way back in the year 1945 from the petitioners for the purpose of widening the road. It is averred that the purpose has not materialised so far and as the land remains vacant till date, petitioners have sought for allotment/reconvening the said land for better use of their property by the petitioners etc. The occasion for the petitioner to approach this Court is that in spite of such representation, the Commissioner has not passed any orders and therefore, a writ in the nature of mandamus is sought for from this Court.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the provision of Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corpo...
Tag this Judgment!D. Narayanappa Vs. the State of Karnataka, by Its Secretary, Housing a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR295
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The applicants in I.A.II are the devotees of the temple situated in the land which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition. They being interested persons in the land in question, and therefore they are necessary and proper parties to these proceedings. The applicants in I.A. XIII are the purchasers of the sites formed in the land in question. Any order passed in this case will be binding on them and therefore they are also necessary and proper parties. Hence, both the I.A.s II and XIII are allowed.2. This is a classic case of exhibiting the style of functioning of officers of Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter in short referred to as 'BDA') in a dictatorial manner either without understanding the statutory provisions, law laid down in a catena of decisions, violating rule of law or in utter ignorance of law. They have exercised powers illegally, arbitrarily and discriminately giving a go-bye to all norms, guidelines and principles required to be...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Bobati and ors. Vs. Mahadev Virupaxappa Latti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-2004
Reported in: 2005CriLJ692; ILR2005KAR960; 2005(1)KarLJ403
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. The respondent-complainant has filed a private complaint against 53 persons, including present petitioners, as accused in Judicial Magistrate First Class, II Court at Belgaum stating that accused 4 to 53 have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC by publishing false and baseless imputation concerning him intending to harm him knowing full well that such imputations, if made, will harm his reputation whereas, by abetting and instigating said accused to commit said offence, the first three accused (A-1 to 3) have committed an offence under Section 109 of the IPC. After recording sworn statement of the complainant and examining a witness, the Court issued process against all the 53 accused, including the petitioners, for the offences alleged. Hence, the accused, other than accused 4, 9, 21, 33, 36, 39 to 42, 44 to 47 and 50 to 53, challenged it by filing Criminal Revision Petition No. 52 of 2004 in the Court of Sessions under Section 397 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Dhareppa Vs. Smt. Renuka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2004
Reported in: I(2005)DMC684; 2005(1)KarLJ469
ORDERS.B. Majage, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.04.2003 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 182/2002 by the Court of IT Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, by which, that petition has been dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent2. Brief facts giving rise to the present matter are: The respondent, who is admittedly the wife of the petitioner, had filed maintenance petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner and that petition was allowed on 30.10.1999 awarding maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month from the date of petition. Challenging that order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 297/99 before the Court of Sessions at Bijapur, which was dismissed on 22.10.2001. Within five days thereafter on 27.10.2001, the respondent - wife filed Crl. Misc. No. 84/2001 for recovery of arrears of maintenance for the period from 05.07.1996 to 27.10.2001 (i.e., from the date of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »