Karnataka Court February 2004 Judgments
A. Sathyapal and ors. Vs. Smt. YasmIn Banu Ansari and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1399
ORDER 8 RULE 1 -- What is the maximum time permissible to file written statement after the expiry of 30 days -- Whether Court has power to extend time beyond 30 days. HELD -- Power to grant extension for filing the written statement stands exhausted no sooner the Court grants 60 days beyond the initial period of 30 days regardless whether the extension is granted is one go or in smaller bits from time to time. After the period of 90 days, the defendant looses the right to file the written statement.(C) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (CENTRAL ACT NO. 5 OF 1908) -- (AMENDMENT ACT OF 2002) -- ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ2175; ILR2004KAR1969; 2004(7)KarLJ66
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 5.2.2000 passed by the Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and II Addl.JMFC., Ranebennur, in C.C.No. 610/93 whereby the Trial Court has rejected the application filed for summoning the respondent-accused by the State under Sections 319 and 216 Cr.P.C. Assailing the order of rejection of the said application the State has preferred this revision petition.2. The learned High Court Govt.Pleader submitted that the Court below ought to have allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Sections 319 and 216 Cr.P.C. Even if the name of respondent-I was ordered to be deleted prior to the framing of the charge does not itself bar from entertaining the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to include him as one of the accused. But the Trial Court rejected the application on the contrary to the evidence of the prosecution. Almost all the 17 witnesses, examined in this case, have consistently and cogently deposed before the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!C. Jayaram, Ifs Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Secretary and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2804; 2004(7)KarLJ71
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The petitioner in this petition was the applicant in original Application No. 1934 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore [hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal']. In this petition, he has called in question the correctness of the order dated 5th November 1997 made in Application No. 1934 of 1995 by the Tribunal, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-N to this petition, in so far as the Tribunal has rejected his prayer for quashing of the order dated 16th June 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G to this petition, Wherein the year of allotment of the petitioner was fixed as 1986. He has also prayed for a further direction to the respondents to re-fix his year of allotment considering his appointment to Indian Forest Service [hereinafter referred to as 'the IPS' ] as one with effect from 3rd February 1989 or in the alternative as one from 1st January 1990 and for other incidental reliefs...
Tag this Judgment!The City Municipal Council Vs. S.A. Lateef and Co.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant491; 2005(1)CTLJ412(Kar); ILR2004KAR4322; 2004(6)KarLJ103
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appeal is filed against the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. dn.), Kolar in O.S. No. 6/98. ,2. The appellant is the defendant. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money in a sum of Rs. 2,10,275.50 with costs and interest. The defendant had invited tenders towards supply of pump sets. The plaintiff's tender is accepted. Accordingly, the plaintiff supplied the pump sets on 22.3.1993. A sum of Rs. 3,13,000-00 was paid towards the part of the value of the pump sets and the balance of Rs. 2,10,275-50 remained unpaid.The petitioner got issued legal notice. Later on filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Kolar in complaint No. KOF/ COMP/6-95. The complaint was allowed and defendant was directed to pay the balance amount. In the appeal, the State Commission by its order dated 16.1.1996, held that the subject matter of dispute is not governed by the Consumer Protection Act and gave liberty to the plaintiff to approach Civil Court. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Malleshaiah Vs. K. Gururaj and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)KarLJ610
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 30-2-2001 passed by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in PCR No. 128 of 1997, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the complaint filed by this revision petitioner.2. Assailing the order of dismissal of the complaint the revision petitioner has come up, with this petition under Section 397 of the Cr, P.C. The allegations of the petitioner in his PCR are that the respondent 1-accused colluding with BDA officers and officials obtained a lease-cum-sale deed dated 27-9-1985 and the possession certificate dated 11-10-1985 and made use of the same in the Civil Court. Likewise, the respondent-accused is responsible for creation of lease-cum-sale deed dated 27-9-1985 and possession certificate dated 11-10-1985 in favour of Smt. B.K. Padmavathamma. On this ground the petitioner has sought for penal action against the respondent under Sections 466, 467, 468 and 469 of the IPC. After registering the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Nimbappa and ors. Vs. Registrar (Admission and Evaluation), Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-2004
Reported in: 2005(3)KarLJ597
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. Sri Ashok Haranahalli is directed to take notice for NCTE.2. As the petitioners are seeking an interim order and the grant of the said interim order is dependent on the validity of their admission to the course itself, by consent of the parties, the matter is heard on merits and disposed of by this order, as common questions of law and facts do arise for consideration in all these writ petitions.3. Karnataka State Open University was established in the year 1994, under the provisions of the Karnataka State Open University Act, 1992, at the State level for the introduction and promotion of Open University and distance education systems in the educational pattern of the State and for co-ordination and determination of standard of such systems. With a view to facilitating hundreds of in-service teachers who are graduates or otherwise eligible for admission to the B.Ed. programme, the University offers an alternative pattern leading to a reasonably good professional deg...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. S.G. Chandra, Managing Director, R.C. Group of Companies Vs. Enfor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ3288; 2004(93)ECC286; 2004(170)ELT402(Kar); 2004(5)KarLJ616; [2006]66SCL410(Kar)
ORDERM.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.1. This petition, by the accused, filed Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing the entireproceedings in CC No. 147/2000, on the file of the Special Court for EconomicOffences, Bangalore, wherein the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance ofthe case against the accused for contravening of Sections 18(2) r/w 18(3) and 68(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, which is punishable under Section56(1)(i) of the said Act, challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings.2. The Court has heard the arguments of Shri Kiran S. Javali, the learnedcounsel on behalf of the accused, and Shri Vishwanath Shendge, the learnedCentral Government Standing counsel on behalf of the Complainant.3. The learned counsel for the accused strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned is illegal and improper. There were absolutely no grounds for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the case and issue process to the accused. T...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ravindranatha Shetty and anr. Vs. Smt. Maire Hengasu and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1615; 2004(5)KarLJ569
ORDERNayak, J. 1. C.R.P.No. 3852 of 2000 filed by the owner of the land in question is directed against the order dated 24.07.2000 passed on I.A. NO.XI on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, in O.S. No. 441 of 1993, whereas C.R.P No. 3877 of 2000 preferred by the tenant of the land in question is directed against the order of the same Court dated 20.09.2000 on I.A.NO.XII in the Same suit. O.S. No. 441 of 1993 instituted by the owner of the land in question for bare permanent injunction against the tenant. In the said suit I.A.No. XI was filed by the tenant requesting the Court below to frame an issue relating to tenancy. The Court below, by its order dated 24.07.2000 has framed an issue relating to tenancy. Being aggrieved by the said order, the owner has preferred C. R.P. No. 3852 of 2000. LA. No. XII was filed by the tenant requesting the Court below to refer the tenancy issue to the land Tribunal under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for...
Tag this Judgment!Liyakhath Ali Vs. H.N. Lohitheshwar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant271; 2004(4)KarLJ57
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. By my order dated 25-2-2004, I had allowed the writ petition and had directed the learned trial Judge to accept the written statement filed by the defendant, though belatedly, and to proceed with the suit. This was in the forenoon session.2. In the afternoon session, one of the learned counsels appearing for the respondent in some other case did bring to my notice the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi : [2002]SUPP1SCR469 and contended that the defendant before the trial Court is expected to file the written statement within the time prescribed under the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (amended provisions). Having gone through the decision, I was of the view that I might have committed a mistake in the morning session while allowing the writ petition. Therefore, I had directed the registry to post this matter for 'Being Spoken To' on 26-2-2004 to hear the learned counsel for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Yashoda M and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ628
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, as excessive, has filed this appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') calling in question the judgment and award dated 20.8.2003 passed in M.V.C. No. 4154 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of the Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore, (SCCH-20), (for short 'the M.A.C.T.')2. The fact that deceased C. Sridhar, aged 40 years as on the date of accident and death was serving as a mechanic in the establishment of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, on a monthly salary of Rs. 5,588, died in an accident that occurred on the intervening night of 177 18.11.2000 involving the motor vehicle being a trailer lorry bearing registration No. KA 01-8211 is not in dispute. The fact that the dependants of the deceased, being the widow, his two minor children and the aged parents claimed co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »