Karnataka Court February 2006 Judgments

P. Manjunath Vs. the Secretary Board of Technical Examination and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1345; 2006(2)KarLJ545

ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. The instant two writ petitions are filed by common petitioner, Sri P. Manjunath. Writ Petition No. 203/2006 is filed by him, questioning the legality and validity of the Government order dated 6th November 1997 bearing No. ED/858/TPE/97, Bangalore, only so far as petitioner herein is concerned vide Annexure H. Further in the said writ petition, he has sought to declare that, the Government Order dated 6th November 1997 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner's case and for a direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to issue the III year Diploma course Marks card to the petitioner.In Writ Petition No. 19542/2005, the same petitioner has assailed the correctness of the communication dated 18th August 2004 issued by first respondent to second respondent at Annexure D and also the communication dated 2nd August 2005 issued by second respondent vide Annexure G to petitioner and to declare that, the petitioner has withdrawn only one subject, i.e., item No. 4, i...

Gita Refractories Private Limited Vs. Cement Corporation of India Limi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ479

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') prays for appointment of an Arbitrator as it is averred that the petitioner and respondent are parties to an agreement containing a clause for appointment of an 'Arbitrator', being unable to concur for a common Arbitrator.2. Respondents have been put on notice and have raised a preliminary objection.3. While agreement itself is not disputed including the clauses and the terms of the agreement, what is pointed out by Sri Cristopher, learned Counsel for the respondent is that there is a clause ousting the jurisdiction of all other Courts except Courts at Tandur and Hyderabad agreed to between the parties for resolving any dispute arising under the agreement in question and therefore submits that this Court cannot entertain a petition of this nature.4. Sri Giridhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the preliminary objection is not tenable; t...

Shamasunder V. Kamath S/O Vasudev Kamath Vs. the Deputy Commissioner f ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1733

ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Transport, Belgaum, dated 27/10/2005 in Appeal No. TXA/22/2004-05 wherein while dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order passed by the Regional Transport officer .dated 07/02/2005.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner had purchased two vans bearing registration Nos. KA 22/A 3222 and KA 22/A 3444 under hire purchase agreement entered into with the third respondent-Bank. It is averred that the petitioner was put in possession of the said vehicles. The registration certificate issued by the Registering Authority shows the name of the petitioner as the owner and entry has been made in each of the certificate of registration of the vehicles regarding existence of hire purchase agreement with the third respondent-financier. Due to manufacturing defects in the vehicl...

North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation by Its Managing Direct ...

Court: Karnataka

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 7.6.2005 passed in W.P. No. 5163/01. The appellant is the respondent in the writ petition. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition.2. The respondent's name was sponsored by the Bellary Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Helper-B in the K.S.R.T.C., Bellary Division. Hence the 2nd respondent (Divisional controller, Bellary Division) forwarded an application to the respondent herein along with his letter dated 28.3.1996 and informed that he may apply for the said post within a month. The respondent was also informed that he would have to appear before the recruitment authority on 6.11.1996 with the completely filled up application and the documents mentioned in the letter dated 28.3.1996. The documents mentioned in the letter dated 28.3.1996 included among others, an application completely filled up in all respects and ITI/ITC (NAC/NTC) marks cards wherein it should have been mention...

Gangamma and anr. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking directions in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order at Annexure-L, dated 5-3-2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, whereby the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur, in R.P. No. 48/2000-2001.2. The petitioners have come up before this Court mainly on the ground that 1st petitioner is none other than the daughter of late Ningaiah and the 2nd petitioner is taken as illatom son-in-law long back from the family of late Hutchana. Late Chikkaiah was owning 12 guntas of land in Sy. No. 69/3 measuring of Kodihalli, Honnavalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, as illatom son-in-law of late Ningaiah, who was looking after the family property and therefore, an agreement was executed on 24-2-1979 by Hutchanna and respondent 3-Chikkanna wrongly showing the land as Sy. No. 69/4 and to that effect an agreement was made on 24-2-1979. Since the petitioners were in pos...

State by Tiptur Rural Police Vs. Marulasiddaiah Alias Murali

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006CriLJ1825; II(2006)DMC139; ILR2006KAR1256; 2006(2)KarLJ173

Chidananda Ullal, J.1. In this case, the case of the prosecution is that, the accused's wife died a homicidal death by strangulation.2. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, Sri N.V. Prakash argued that there is no eye-witness to the incident and as such, the prosecution had proved the case only by circumstantial evidence. According to him, the circumstances are that the wife of the accused was taken away by him from the house of her sister Bhavani on the day previous, with the presentation to her that he was taking the deceased to his village and thereafter, he had returned to the house of the said Bhavani alone. On enquiry, by the said Bhavani, he told her that the deceased who was in his company was missing in Tumkm- bus stand. 3. According to the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the circumstantial evidences are as follows.--1. That, the deceased was in the company of her husband and she was seen last in the company of her husband in the house of Bhavani;2. That...

Smt. Chandrika Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR1244; 2006(2)KarLJ166

ORDER1. The petitioner is the wife of Sri Manjunath alias Manju alias Ravi alias Santro Ravi alias Kiran alias Sidda Shetty S/o Sidda Shetty, the detenu herein. She is challenging in this writ petition, her husband's detention.2. The detenu has been detained in Central Jail, Bangalore, in pursuance of an order of detention passed by the second respondent under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Goonda Act') as per Annexure-A. Annexure-B to the writ petition is the grounds of detention and Annexure-B1 is the list of documents on which the order of detention is passed. The said order has been approved by the first respondent as per Annexure-C, dated 13-7-2005. The said order was referred to the Advisory Board which recommended for its confirmation and accordingly the order of confirmation of the detenu for a period of 12 month...

J.R. Raghunath (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ367

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, represented by his legal representatives, questioning the impugned order dated 8th January, 2001 bearing No, Purasabhe (1) CR 143, 161/99-2000 on the file of the first respondent vide Annexure-J, only insofar as it relates to cancellation of resolution No. 13(4), dated 26th March, 1998 passed by second respondent-Town Panchayat, have presented the instant writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner, now represented by his legal representatives is that, he was the senior and law abiding citizen and was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the house property bearing Municipal Assessment No. 1187/1301/1366 of Halesanthe Maidhan, Molakalmuru Town, Chitradurga District, having purchased the same from Molakalmuru Municipality in the years 1974 and 1978, wherein he has constructed a house measuring an extent of 82 ft. East to West and 19 ft. North to South, leaving 3 ft. x 84 ft. vacant, towards the northern side of the property for the purpose of v...

Mrs. Mariamma Vs. Mangalore City Corporation and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2006(2)KarLJ508

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 10th November, 2000 bearing No. E9/TP/481/2000-01 on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure-F, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, to the respondents to demolish the illegal construction put up in the property bearing No. 1398/2B situate at Kudroli Ward, Kasaba Bazaar Village, Mangalore.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No. 1398/1A situate at Kudroli Ward, Kasaba Bazaar Village, Mangalore, coming within the city limits of the Corporation of Mangalore, which consists of a residential house. The adjacent property bearing No. 1398/2B belongs to the third respondent, one Smt. Khairunnisa which falls to the southern side of the petitioner's property. The third respondent has put up a new building by demolishing the old house standing in its place. Whe...

Sarathi Leasing Finance Limited Vs. Sri B. Narayana Shetty

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: II(2007)BC1; [2006]131CompCas798(Kar); ILR2006KAR1929; 2006(3)KarLJ397

ORDERA.C. Kabbin, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.12.2003 passed by the Learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 42/ 2001, by which the conviction of the respondent in Judgment dated 27.2.2001 recorded by the Learned JMFC (IV Court) Mangalore in C.C. No. 215/2000 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and consequent sentence have been set aside. The revision petitioner/complainant prays for resorting the conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Trial Judge.2. The revision petitioner is a company represented by its Managing Director. In the complaint filed on behalf of the said Company, it was alleged that one Vasanthkumar had borrowed a sum of Rs. 65,000/- from the revision petitioner and for repayment of the balance of the said amount with interest thereon he, (the respondent/ accused), as co-obligant, had issued a cheque for Rs. 65,200/-. The s...