Karnataka Court September 2005 Judgments
Rama Subraya Naik Since Dead by His L.Rs and ors. Vs. State of Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5788; 2006(5)KarLJ168
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are the legal representatives of Rama Subraya Naik challenging the order dated 26-9-97 passed by the Land Tribunal-2nd respondent herein in case No. LRM. SR.5-666-459 produced at Annexure-'D' whereby the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of the 3rd respondent-Keshava Narayan Naik in respect of the land bearing Sy.No. 1626/2 to an extent of 14 guntas. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with this writ petition mainly on the ground that, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant occupancy right in favour the 3rd respondent who claims right on the basis of the Will said to have been executed by the father of the petitioners. The Tribunal has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and it has simply narrated statement of the parties and not discussed the same. Further, the Tribunal has misread, misinterpreted and misunderstood the law laid down by the Division Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!Manjegowda Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: 2006(1)KarLJ127
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by the legal heir of a person who had purchased a land that; had been originally granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community in terms of a grant order dated 4-6-1960.2. Such land been purchased by the father of the writ petitioner in terms of sale deeds dated 5-3-1981 and 17-6-1988. In respect of the said transactions the Assistant Commissioner, having been moved by the son of the grantee, invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act'), issued notice to the petitioner herein, who was in possession of the land, held enquiry and invalidated the sale transactions, for the reasons that the transfer of the land was after the Act came into force without prior permission of the Government as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. Further appeal to the Deputy Commissioner having failed, the presen...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mangilal Vs. M.S. Ramakrishna Gupta and Brothers and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Kant250; ILR2006KAR761; 2006(3)KarLJ286
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This Second appeal is filed by the plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur in R.A.No. 3/91 in allowing the appeal and reversing the findings of the Civil Judge, Tarikere in O.S. No. 70/86 dated 31.3.872. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendants for return of earnest money of Rs. 65,000/- said to have been paid by him towards purchase of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties over which the plaintiff had a charge and also to direct the defendants to produce 'B' schedule movables to Court and also for a personal decree against the defendants for return of the amount. The 1st defendant is a firm of which defendants 2 to 6 are partners. The properties described in the 'A' schedule is said to be a coffee estate known as Diwankhan 'C Estate owned by the defendants. It is stated that the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for sale of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule pro...
Tag this Judgment!Sri M.G. Prakash Rao and anr. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: I(2006)ACC548; ILR2005KAR5317; 2005(6)KarLJ341
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 12th September 2005 passed in W.R No. 20795 of 2005. The respondents 2,3 and 4 are the existing operators on the routes covering Davanagere, Channagiri and Bhadravathi sectors. The appellants made applications for grant of stage carriage permits before the first respondents, Regional Transport Authority (for short, 'the RTA') between the routes Davanagere and Bhadravathi. The RTA, Davanagere, granted two permits in favour of the first appellant, between Bhadravathi and Davanagere and back in Sub. No. SCP/ 220/03 - 04 and 221/03 - 04 dated 27.7.2004 (results announced on 10.10.2004). Similarly, the RTA granted a stage carriage permit to the second appellant for the route Davanagere to Bhadravathi and back by its order dated 17.2.2005 in sub No. SCP/141/04 - 05. Thereafterwards, the RTA sanctioned a timetable in favour of the appellants 1 and 2 for their services. The timings assigned to the...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association rep. by Its Secretary' and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: ILR2005KAR5401; 2006(1)KarLJ300
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions are challenging the validity of the Licensing and Controlling of places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order 2005, published in the Karnataka Special Gazette dated 24th of May, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 'order' for short). The 1st petitioner is an Association of persons who are conducting live band at different places in Bangalore City. The same has been registered on 27th April 2001. The copy of the Registration Certificate is produced as Annexure-B. The 1st petitioner Association is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The remaining petitioners are the persons who are running the Bar and Restaurants and entertaining their customers by playing live band music. On earlier occasions, the respondents were insisting that the persons who are conducting the live band should obtain licence under the Licensing and Controlling of Public Amusement (Bangalore City) Order 2002 ...
Tag this Judgment!S.T. Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: 2005(6)KarLJ353
ORDERS.R. Nayak, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (for short, 'the Tribunal'), dated 13th September, 2000 passed in O.A. No. 981 of 1999. In the said original application, the petitioner herein sought for quashing of the communication of adverse remarks under various heading as incorporated in the letter from the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, dated 9-12-1997, addressed to him and marked as Annexure-Al. The Tribunal by its order impugned in this writ petition has dismissed the original application with costs of Rs. 3,000/- payable to the second respondent, namely, Sri C. Dinakar, IPS.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows.-The petitioner was selected, to the Indian Police Service in the year 1976 and allocated to Karnataka Cadre. The petitioner has held several posts under the Karnataka State and the Central Government. In the month of April 1997, the petitioner was promoted ...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Harakchand Sankla Vs. Kurlon Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: IV(2006)BC91; [2006]134CompCas295(Kar); 2006CriLJ261; ILR2006KAR234; 2006(1)KarLJ332; 2006(2)KLT733
ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner being accused No. 2 in C. C. Nos. 26054/2004, 26072/2004, 26053/2004, 26056/2004, 26055/2004, 26073/2004, and 26071/2004, pending on the file of 14th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, has sought for quashing the said proceedings.2. Based on the complaints lodged by respondent herein against the petitioner and two others alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the present proceedings are initiated. The complaints disclose that the cheques issued by the accused for repayment of the legally recoverable debts due to the complainant's company, were, on presentation, returned by the concerned Bank with an endorsement of 'Alteration in date and drawer's signature differs'. The statutory notices issued by the complainant to the petitioner herein returned with an endorsement of 'not claimed'. As the amounts involved in the cheques were not paid by the accused, complaints came to be filed. The principle contention...
Tag this Judgment!V. Hanumanthaiah Vs. State of Karnataka by Its Revenue Secretary and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR174; 2006(1)KarLJ466
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. The provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978, (for short 'Act') have proved to be a fertile ground for unending litigation during the course of which the statutory functionaries, namely, the Assistant Commissioner as the first authority and the Deputy Commissioner as the appellate authority also join the fray, many a times by taking sides to promote interest of one side or the other, though without any justification either on facts or in law, exercise their power in quixotic, arbitrary, whimsical manner, assume jurisdiction which is not conferred under the Act, pass orders which do not bear scrutiny even in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India even for a moment and bring to ridicule the law, provisions of the Act and the efforts on the part of law makers to achieve certain social goals and objectives.2. The present writ petition illustrates vividly as to how a successor Deputy Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswamy D. Vs. the Chief Manager and the Disciplinary Authority ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: ILR2006KAR569
ORDERB.S. Patil, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is questioning the initiation of departmental enquiry into the charges levelled against him on the ground that he has been already honourably acquitted in the criminal proceedings initiated against him in respect of identical charges in C.C.No. 499/2002 disposed of on 29.09.2004.2. The facts in brief as stated by the petitioner would disclose that when the petitioner was working as peon at Yelahanka branch of the respondent-bank, a complaint was filed before the Yelahanka police station. Criminal proceedings were initiated based on the charge sheet submitted by the police. Simultaneously, the bank framed a charge sheet against the petitioner in order to hold a departmental enquiry against him. A copy of the Articles of Charge issued against the petitioner is produced at Annexure-D. A perusal of the charges would disclose that on 25.05.2002 at around 8.30 p.m., the petitioner attempted to burgle Yelahanka branch of the bank along ...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Muzumdar Vs. Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. (In Liquation)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas468(Kar); [2006]66SCL170(Kar)
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. In all these applications, common questions of law and that of fact arise for consideration. Hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the applications are clubbed, heard together and finally disposed of by this order.The reliefs, common in all these applications filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act'), are: (i) to call for the proceedings in the suits instituted by the applicants pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Harihar, (ii) to direct the Official Liquidator to execute and register the Sale-deeds in their favour in respect of the properties agreed to be conveyed. Alternatively, to permit the applicants to pursue the suits instituted by them and to stay the tender notification Annexure 'L' insofar as it relates to the schedule properties, subject-matter of agreements. In C.A. 481 and 482 of 2005, the applicants having not instituted Original Suits for specific performance of agreements h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »