Karnataka Court April 2004 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.
The Chief Secretary, Rep. by the Dy. Commissioner, Government of Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2006ACJ1313; AIR2005Kant39; ILR2004KAR4887
Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The respondent - plaintiff filed a suit for damages claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- payable by the defendants for the injury caused to him by the negligent act of the Police Sub-Inspector of Talikoti Police Station.2. On 16.5.1991 there was a political meeting, around 9.45 p.m. The plaintiff was in the house of his uncle, it appears that some communal inflationary speeches are made resulting in riotous situation, the PSI comes to the scene with the troop of policemen, initially employee tear gas shells to control the riotous mob. When the situation becomes unwieldly, the PSI opened fire by shooting from his pistol. The plaintiff who was in the house of his uncle was injured. The plaintiff was treated in the hospital as inpatient for a month. The plaintiff is a student studying PUC at the time of incident. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is claimed as damages.3. Per contra, the defendants contend that on the said day in the evening hours there was a political meeting, communal infla...
A.S.N. Murthy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-2004
Reported in: 2004(7)KarLJ215
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J1. The petitioner who was an applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, questions the legality and correctness of the order of the Tribunal dated 21st January, 1998 dismissing the application O.A. No. 381 of 1997 filed by him.2. The petitioner filed the application before the Tribunal questioning the letter dated 19th June, 1996, issued by the Government of India taking the stand that he shall cease to earn increments in the Junior Scale of pay until having regard to his length of service he becomes entitled to higher pay as provided by Rule 4(1)(b) of the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954. The case set up by the petitioner before the Tribunal is to the effect that Rule 4(1)(b) of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 ('the Rules' for short), is subject to the proviso and that he would be entitled to the regular increments due under Rule 7 of the Rules.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Patil and Sri D. Gangadha...
M.R. Heera Singh Vs. Hmt Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: [2004(102)FLR366]; ILR2004KAR2148; 2004(7)KarLJ211
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner joined HMT Watch Factory in the year 1963. He was promoted from time to time. He has put in about 27 years of service in the organisation. He retired from service on 31-7-1994. On 23-1-1990 petitioner could not come to factory in the morning due to some personal work. He went to factory to join the duty for latter half of the period at 11.30 AM. Due to traffic jam at the level crossing near Gokul which is on the way to the factory, petitioner could not reach the factory in time i.e., 11.30 Am but he could reach at 11.45 AM. He entered the factory and assumed duty at 11.45 AM thinking that he could get attestation of his card by his Superior Officer as he enjoyed that special privilege. There is also a register kept near the gate in which some officers use to sign when they enter. However, this practice is not mandatory. The petitioner had informed two of his colleagues that he would be coming late to the duty and requested them to attend some urgent w...
Rabiya Bi Kassim M. Vs. the Country Wide Consumer Financial Service Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2215; 2004(4)KarLJ189
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. The Learned Single Judge has referred this matter to the Division bench vide order dated 8.10.2001 in view of the conflicting decisions reported in (SUJATHA v. INDIAN BANK, : ILR1996KAR553 ) following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : [1964]5SCR946 and the Subsequent decision reported in ILR 2000 KAR 820, and ILR 2000 KAR 2713. As per the directions dated 10.2.2004, the matter has come up before us.2. The necessary facts are that the respondent plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant for a judgment and decree for a sum of Rs. 19,562.82 together with interest at 21% per annum. The arguments were heard finally on 12.06.2001. The case was posted on 20.6.2001 for judgment. On 18.6.2001, the respondents filed I.A No. 3 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to recall the order dated 30.5.2001 and to re-open the plaintiff's side to lead further evidence afresh. Another application I.A No. 5 was filed unde...
T.S. Raghavan Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-2004
Reported in: (2004)189CTR(Kar)210; [2004]270ITR27(KAR); [2004]270ITR27(Karn)
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This writ appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby W.P. No. 26455 of 1993 filed by the appellant, herein has been dismissed and an order of pre-emptive purchase of property passed by respondent-Appropriate Authority under Section 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 upheld.2. The controversy arises in the following backdrop :In terms of an agreement dt. 11th Dec., 1992, respondent No. 3 in this appeal who happened to be the owner of property bearing No. 28-29 situated in 12th 'D' Main Road, 6th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, agreed to sell the same to the appellant herein for a total consideration of Rs. 14,50,000. A sum of Rs. 3 lakhs representing part payment of the sale price was paid by the appellant to the vendor of the property aforementioned. Since however the consideration fixed was beyond the stipulated amount, the parties appear to have filed Form No. 37-I before the Appropriate Authority in accordance with the provis...
S.N. Chandrashekar and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka, by Its Secreta ... Overruled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2434
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J. 1. One S.N. Chandrashekar and another claiming to be residents of 10th Main, V Block of Jayanagar, Bangalore have filed this public interest litigation. It is stated that the Karnataka Housing Board formed V Block, Jayanagar sometime in 1962 and after formation, houses were constructed and allotted to general public of middle income group for residential purpose. The entire V Block of Jayanagar is shown as a residential Zone in the Comprehensive Development Plan prepared by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the BDA'). The petitioners were allotted houses bearing No. 282D and 281D respectively. The premises bearing No. 585 was allotted in favour of one K.V.Ramachandra and a lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 19.10.1968. After the expiry of the 25 years lease period, a sale deed was executed in favour of K.V.Ramachandra on 10.12.1994 on the condition that the premises should be exclusively used for residential purpose only. The 6th respondent purc...
A. Madhava Acharya and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Secretary ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR2853
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The petitioners are the Members of 2nd respondent society. They are seeking to quash the entire proceedings in the suit in O.S.No. 264/ 2003 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Mangalore. The suit was filed to declare the election notice issued as null and void. The Trial Court granted interim order restraining conduct of election till the disposal of the suit. These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in the suit on the principal ground that there is express bar of suit under Section 118(1)(c) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act as the basis for the suit falls within the definition of 'dispute' under Section 70(2)(c) of the Act.2. Learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 7 filed detailed counter statement questioning the locus stand of the petitioners and maintainability of Writ Petitions on the ground that application could have been filed for vacating the interim order. In this regard, the decisions reported in PU...
Mariyappa Vs. Dr. N. Thimmarayappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3298; 2004(5)KarLJ255
Chandrashekaraiah, J.1. This Writ Appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.11.2000 passed in W.P.10391/2000.2. The parties in this appeal are referred to as arraigned in the Writ Petition.3. The facts in this case are as follows:A land measuring 4 acres in old Sy.No. 67 and new No. 130 of Nanjapura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, was granted in favour of the father of the petitioner on 13.12.1936, the said land was sold by the father of the petitioner in favour of the father of the 1st respondent under a registered sale deed on 19.6.1947. Consequent on coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner made an application before the Asst. Commissioner for a declaration that the sale dated 19.6.1947 was void and for restoration of the possession of the said land. The Asst. Commissioner allowed the application by declaring the sale...
T.S. Subbaraju Vs. T.A. Shivarama Setty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant479; 2004(7)KarLJ190
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 8-11-2001 dismissing O. S. No. 3618 of 1985 on the file of the Court of XXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short Civil Court).2. Facts in brief, as noticed, for decision-making in this appeal are :The relationship of the parties are not in dispute. The appellant-plaintiff is the second son of the 1st defendant, father and 2nd defendant, mother, while the 3rd defendant is the elder brother and 4th defendant is the younger. Defendant No. 5 is the purchaser of Item No. 1 of plaint Schedule 'A' immovable properties conveyed by the 1st defendant. The appellant and respondents 1 to 4 constitute a joint Hindu Undivided Family.3. The appellant instituted O. S. No. 3618 of 1985 for partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in plaint 'A' and 'B' Schedule pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›