Karnataka Court July 2004 Judgments
Karnataka Ithihasa Academy (R) Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: 2004(6)KarLJ613
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. Karnataka Ithihasa Academy, represented by its member, Sri T.R. Krishna Gowda has filed this PIL petition to quash the order dated 21-4-2003 passed by the 4th respondent approving the construction.2. It is stated that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is stated that as per Indian history, Pampa Kshetra, now known as Hampe, Pampa or Hampi in colloquial usage was the capital of Vijayanagar Emperors. The capital was later shifted on to the southern bank of Tungabhadra river near Sri Virupaksha Temple and the new capital was built around the said temple. Hampi is the only city in the entire world, which has been lying in almost the same condition in which it was, immediately after the devastating war, when the Vijayanagar rulers lost to their enemies who plundered the kingdom. The UNICEF appreciating that Hampi is of great architectural importance, issued guidelines in partial implementation of which an ar...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishna Shetty Vs. N. Mruthyunjaya Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4792
ORDERK. Ramanna, J. 1. This revision is filed by the complainant against the order of conviction and sentence passed in C. C. No. 1105/95 on the file of the Addl. JMFC, Mudigere. For Inadequacy of sentence.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.3. During the course of the argument the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent herein has issued a cheque for Rs. 75,000/- dated 11-10-1994, which was issued for re-payment of the debt, which came to be dishonoured. Therefore, he filed a private complaint. After recording the evidence the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the respondent-accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, though convicted but sentenced him to pay fine only. It is contended that under the law the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation and the Court is empowered to impose fine double the cheque amount therefore, in the instant case, the trial C...
Tag this Judgment!Rohini Bai Vs. B.L. Rajashri and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant115; 2005(1)KarLJ500
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellant is the defendant. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant not to put up any construction on the southern compound wall, and for mandatory injunction for demolishing the height of the compound wall built in excess of 4 feet, further seek a direction that a set back space of 5' should be left between the southern compound wall and the building and also to direct the defendant not to open any windows or ventilators to the southern compound wall.2. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the constructions are valid and duly licensed by the Corporation. It is the case of the plaintiff that the illegal construction would affect the easementary rights of enjoyment of light and air to his property.3. The Trial Court has decreed the suit directing demolition of the southern compound wall built in excess of 4' height and also directed for leaving set back space of 3' between the southern compound wall and th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Doddanagowda (Deceased by Lr) Vs. V. Ramachandra Reddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Kant449
V. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The Appellant was the defendant and Respondent was the Plaintiff in the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as in the trial Court.2. The Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from putting up cuddapah slabs or making construction .in front of the open space of his house thereby obstructing right of way from the road to house and for mandatory injunction to remove the cuddapah slabs planted in front of his house. Plaintiff claims that he has been using the courtyard in front of defendant's house and the open space in front of his house to approach the road since time Immemorial. Since the defendant erected cuddapah slabs obstructing the passage to the plaintiff, suit was filed. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement denying the plaint averments. The defendant states that difference between him and the plaintiff arose on account of attempt to construct sink pit adjacen...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Sabir Ahmed and ors. Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Scienc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3419; 2004(5)KarLJ303
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. Issue rule.2. Since the common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.3. In all these petitions, the petitioners have sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent University to refer their answer scripts of the examination in Phase III paper II conducted in March 2004 to a third valuer and thereafter declare their result.4. The petitioners have appeared for Phase III Part II of the M.B.B.S., examination in March 2004. They have failed in the said examination in one subject or the other.5. Sri N. Devadas, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the marks awarded between the first valuer and the second valuer is less than 20%. All of them have failed by small margins in different subjects. He further submits that the Parents' Association of the respondent- University filed a Writ Petition in W.P. Nos.2905/2000 and 453/2000, challenging the ord...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Kareem @ Mohammed Saleem Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3649; 2004(7)KarLJ341; [2006]146STC203(Kar)
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The Petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the auction notification dated.6th February 2002 bearing No. TAX:BKL.CR:9/2001-02 on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure A, has presented the instant Writ Petition. Further, the petitioner has sought for a declaration, declaring that the sale held on 25th February 2002 as per sale proceedings vide Annexure B as illegal and consequently quash the sale proceedings and also to quash the order of confirmation of sale held on 9th August 2002 bearing No. Ddis.Tax.CR. 17/2002-03 vide Annexure H on the file of the first respondent.2. The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner was in arrears of tax to the Commercial Tax Department to the tune of Rs. 7,691/- and the Commercial Tax Department has referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for Recovery to initiate the revenue recovery proceedings against the father of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, in turn, has directed ...
Tag this Judgment!Habib Vs. Smt. Jayamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3408; 2004(5)KarLJ149
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. This revision by the tenant is directed against the order dated 10.06.2003 passed by the XV Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore in H.R.C. NO. 10420/1996. The Court below allowed the petition filed by the landlord under Section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Act 1999' for short) corresponding to Section 21 (1) (h) of the repealed Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Old Act' for short) and ordered eviction of the tenant-petitioner herein from the petition premises.2. The landlords-respondents herein filed eviction petition under Section 21(1) (h) of the 'old Act' before the Court below praying for eviction of the tenant-petitioner herein from the petition schedule premises viz., shop No. 1, Cauvery complex, Municipal No. 17/8/2, 11th main road, Gokula I Phase, I Stage, Bangalore-54 measuring 9'.6' x 15' on the ground that one of the landlord i.e., Respondent No. 2 herein, ...
Tag this Judgment!Balappa Narasappa Karade Vs. Govind Narasappa Karade, by His L.Rs. and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4044; 2004(6)KarLJ239
Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The respondent was the plaintiff and Appellant was the defendant in the Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule properties for possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant in the year 1968 requested to permit him to stay in a portion of the suit house and the plaintiff permitted him to stay. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant managed to get his name entered in respect of CTS No. 4137 showing the source of title as ancestral. It is alleged that on the instigation of others, the defendant asserted to claim right, title and interest over half portion but the Tahsildar rejected it. In appeal, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the same on 24.11.1986 and on ...
Tag this Judgment!Dlf Universal Limited Vs. the Additional Chief Engineer, Nuclear Power ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-2004
Reported in: I(2005)BC21; 2004(5)KarLJ116
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J. 1. On 22-2-2004, respondents 1 and 2 invited tenders for the sale of their land situated in Survey Number 16 measuring 8.875 acres, Sy. No. 17 measuring 5.225 acres, a portion of Sy. No. 18 measuring 6.613 acres, a portion of Sy. No. 146 measuring 8.350 acres in all measuring 29.063 acres, situated on Old Madras Road, Bangalore.2. Pursuant to the tender notification, the petitioner submitted its bid in a sealed cover on 31-3-2004 along with an earnest money deposit of Rs. 10.00 lakhs, A copy of the tender notification is produced as Annexure-B to the writ petition. With certain conditions the petitioner offered to pay a sum of Rs. 5,57,56,800/- per acre. When the tenders were opened in the presence of all the bidders, the petitioner's bid was found to be highest. On 1-4-2004, the respondents sent a fax message stating that the petitioner should withdraw the condition imposed in its tender. The said letter is produced as Annexure-E to the writ petition. The condi...
Tag this Judgment!Khazia Mohammed Muzzammil Vs. the State of Karnataka, by the Chief Sec ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR3455
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. This Writ Petition is filed against the Notification, Annexure-A, dated 24.3.2000 passed by the 1st respondent.2. The necessary facts are that the petitioner, under the provisions of Rule 2 of the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 (for short 'the 1983 Rules'), was appointed as District Judge on 9.5.1996. He was posted as District Judge, Leave Reserve, High Court of Karnataka on 15.5.1996, on probation for a period of two years. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred as the 1st Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City by Notification No. GOB (I) 4(1)796, dated 20.05.1996. The petitioner worked for a period of 3 years 10 months and 10 days. However, the petitioner was discharged from his services, as he was unsuitable to hold the post of District Judge, vide Annexure-A. The same is challenged in this petition.3. Sri K.K. Mani, for Mohammed Usman Shaikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »