Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR953; 2005(4)KarLJ133
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. The Petitioners are before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 16.11.2004 made in KTAC 54/2004 (Annexure-D) on the file of the 2nd Respondent, and also direct the 2nd Respondent to grant permission to the 1st Petitioner to undergo kidney transplantation.2. The Respondent Nos. l and 2 are represented by Sri Tajuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader.3. With the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties, heard arguments for final disposal.4. For the purpose of convenience, the Petitioner Nos.l and 2 are hereinafter referred to as the Recipient and 'the Donor' respectively.5. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Writ petitions may be stated as under:-Since both the kidneys failed, the Recipient and the Donor jointly made an application under Sub-Section (5) of Section 9 of The Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (in short, 'the Act'). The Authorisation Committee, after recording their statements on 16.11.2004, r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant136; ILR2005KAR467; 2005(4)KarLJ85
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and Order dated 12th July 2000 made in OS No. 32 of 1990 by the Court of the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore [hereinafter referred to as 'the City Civil Judge'] granting probate of the Will dated 20th April 1970 of late C.G. Shastry in favour of the 1st respondent in so far as it relates to property set out in 'A' Schedule given to the plaint. The appeal was initially filed by one B Manjunath Prabhu and during the pendency of the appeal since the original appellant having expired, his legal representatives were brought on record as supplemental appellants No. 1(a) to 1(c), by means of Order dated 1st December 2003.2. Facts of the case may be briefly stated as hereunder:The 1st respondent C.G. Srinivas filed a petition for probate in P & SC No. 61 of 1983 on 21st January 1983 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [hereinafter referred to as 'th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant236; 2005(2)CTLJ7(Kar); ILR2005KAR1470
ORDERS.B. Majage, J. 1. A short but an important question for consideration is; 'whether an endorsement on pronote, showing part payment and extending the period of limitation, could be construed as 'promise' under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act?'2. Facts in brief, which gave raise to the question, are; Respondent Narayanachari, who was the plaintiff in O.S.No. 201/ 00 before the Court of Civil Judge(Sr.Dn) & JMFC at Bhadravathi, brought suit against one Adivelu (now deceased) stating that Adivelu borrowed a sum of Rs. 26,000/- on 20.11.91 and also Rs. 25,000/- on 15.12.91 under two different pronotes agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs. 18% p.a. and in connection with first pronote, Adivelu made part payments of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 3,000 on 8.11.94 and 18.11.97 respectively and, with regard to second pronote dated 15.12.91, he made part payment of Rs. 3,500/- on 8.11.94 and Rs. 4,000/- on 28.11.97 but not thereafter. As such, calculating the amount due under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR4843
ORDERMohan Shanthanagoudar, J.1. By the impugned order dated 25-3-2004 vide Annexure-A, the District Magistrate, Chitradurga, has cancelled the permit granted in favour of the petitioner to run Sri Siddeshwara Video Theatre, Challakere.2. The records disclose that on 24-1-2004, at 7.30 p.m., the petitioner was allegedly exhibiting a non-certified film. The Police raided the said theatre and, during the course of investigation, ceased the C.D. Cassettes and V.C.D. players. The Police also registered Criminal Case No. 43/2004 under Section 292 of the IPC. On the report of the police Sub-Inspector of Challakere Police Station, the District Magistrate cancelled the licence of the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Karnataka Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorder (Regulation) Rules, 1984.3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order in question in illegal, inasmuch as, the same is passed contrary to the provisions under Section 17(1) of the K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR556; 2005(1)KarLJ220
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Tara A. Prabhu is challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluka, Mangalore, dated 28-6-2003 in this petition.2. Facts in brief are as follows.-Petitioner is the owner of land Sy. No. 258 of Kasba Bazar Village, Mangalore measuring 0.24 acres. The said land was acquired by a gift deed. The land is in the heart of Mangalore City opposite to Mahammaya temple. Land consists of several residential houses including five houses occupied by respondents 3 to 7 in the matter. Rent Bonds were executed by the tenants in terms of Annexure-A to E.3. There is no agrarian relationship of the landlord and the tenants between the parties and therefore the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, 'the Act') is not applicable. Contesting respondents however filed application in Form 7 claiming occupancy rights. Same was opposed by the predecessors of the petitioner. The Tribunal rejected the claim in terms of the order dated 12-9-1977....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2662; II(2005)DMC152; ILR2005KAR1835
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. The accused in the thrust of obtaining consent for the second marriage from his wife subjected her to cruelty and harassment. As a result of harassment and pestering and also due to the willful conduct ended in the ghastly incident where she administered poison to the three minor sons and committed suicide.2. This is the State appeal assailing the judgment of acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC in SC. No. 41/1994 on the file of Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangalore, dated 8-9-1998.3. The gist of the prosecution case are as follows:-The marriage of the deceased Smt. Rathna Poojarthi took place during 1979 with the accused Anni Poojary at Idu Village. Out of their wedlock, the deceased gave birth to 3 sons viz., Anand, aged about 12 years, Raju aged about 10 years and Sadananda, aged about 8 years. Later, they shifted to Mantrady village and were residing at some distance from the house of P.W. 1 Veerappa Poojary, P.W. 2, Smt. Kamala (the mot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR1253; 2005(4)KarLJ148
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. This appeal is filed by the convicted accused Nos. 1 and 4 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 31st January, 2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tumkur in S.C. No. 97/ 96 holding both the appellants guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 201 both read with Section 34 of IPC.2. It is to be mentioned here itself that in all, six accused including the appellants were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201 IPC, and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but on appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court though gave benefit of doubt to accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 and acquitted them of all the charges, the appellants who were accused Nos. 1 and 4 respectively, were found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 both read with 34 IPC.3. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are as follows:On 14th February, 1996 at about 10.30 a.m. a woman by name Kempamma appeared at the Gubbi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2005Kant205
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. (i) In these batch of writ petitions, the prayer in W.P. Nos. 33120-21 and 33237-29, 48429-38, 46814, 46815, 46816, 46817, 49936, 49937 and 51804/2003 filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC)/North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as 'NWKRTC' in short) is to quash the Contract Carriage Permits granted to private operators, some of them are also contesting respondents in these petitions. The contentions urged in these petitions, objections filed by both State and permit holder respondents and other allied matters pertaining to these writ petitions are dealt with in paragraph 4 of this order.(ii) In W.P. Nos. 30657-60 and 52160-61/2003 filed by private operators/permit holders of the vehicles, the prayer is to direct the State respondents not to enforce the terms, conditions and instructions issued in the Circular No. STA.6/PR-02/2003-04, dated 5-4-2003 issued by the Chairman, Karnataka State Transport Authori...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR884
R. Gururajan, J.1. These three appeals are disposed of by this common order. All these three appeals arise out of an order passed in O.S.No.3421/ 2000 dated 8.2.2002 by the learned Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore.2. R.F.A. No. 386/2002 is filed by Nagendra Babu. Facts' in brief are as under:One Mr. Manohar Rao Pawar, the plaintiff-respondent filed a plaint in O.S.No, 3421/2000. According to the petition averments, he is the absolute owner and possession of the suit schedule site. It is a portion of the larger area bearing Corporation No. 10. Properties stood in the name of late Shivaramanand Bharathi. The plaintiff purchased the same for valuable consideration by a registered sale deed dated 8.7.1987. The defendant is a stranger to the suit property. He has no manner of right, title or interest. He started a school called Kids Convent located at the North-East corner of No. 10 of the Corporation. The suit schedule property/ site and location of the school in No. 10 are shown in the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2005]126CompCas545(Kar); [2005]62SCL421(Kar)
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This order is in continuation of order dated December 13, 2004 in OLR No. 533 of 2004, for the purpose of disposing of the connected company applications, in the light of subsequent submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.2. All these matters had been heard earlier and were to be ordered. While in the process, Sri Narayan Bhat, learned counsel for the applicants in C. A. No. 1234 of 2002 representing the erstwhile workmen of the company under liquidation, moved the court for listing the matter for further hearing on the premise that though certain amounts have been realised from the sale of assets of the company under liquidation, in view of the various claims and counter claims and these matters require resolution etc., the amount has not been distributed so far. The official liquidator before whom the claims on behalf of workmen had been put forward has now determined the entitlement of the amount due to the workmen ; that at any rate the amount...
Tag this Judgment!