Karnataka Court April 2006 Judgments
Dr. Sandeep B.E. and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-25-2006
Reported in: ILR2006KAR2535; 2006(6)KarLJ181
ORDERN.K. Patil, J. 1. In ail these cases, petitioners herein, questioning the correctness of the impugned show cause notices all dated 6th April 2006 and some petitioners also assailing the correctness of the Government Order dated 13th March 2006 bearing No. HFW.60 MPS 2006 issued by the State Government and the enquiry report submitted by the Three-man Committee, have presented the instant writ petitions. Further, some of the petitioners have also sought for a writ of prohibition restraining the State Government from taking any further action pursuant to the show cause notice dated 6th April 2006. The interim order prayed for by petitioners herein is to stay the operation of the impugned show cause notices all dated 6th April 2006 and the Government Order dated 13th March 2006 issued by the State Government and to permit the petitioners to participate in the counselling for selection and admission to PG courses scheduled to commence shortly.2. Petitioners herein claim to be the MBBS...
Tag this Judgment!Havgirao S/O Shivrudrappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: II(2007)DMC455; ILR2006KAR4054
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The accused charged for committing offences punishable Under Sections 498-A & 304(B) IPC.2. The trial Court convicted A1 for an offence punishable under Section 304(B) and holds that a separate conviction under Section 498-A is unnecessary since the offence under Section 304(B) partakes all the ingredients of Section 498-A.3. The deceased Kalpana is married to A1 about one and a half-year prior to the death. A3 and AS are the parents of A1 A2 and A4 are the brother and sister of A1. At the time of marriage, the father of victim PW-6 gave cash of Rs. 1000/- as dowry and some gold articles, A1 some time after the marriage started pestering the deceased to bring money from her parents and inflicted cruelty. Unable to bear the cruel treatment, the deceased committed suicide by jumping into well on the night of 26/27.8.92.4. In the course of inquest, two chits at Exs. P8 & P9 were recovered from the dead body and they disclose that the contents are written by the decea...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Slum Clearance Board Vs. H.T. Annaji and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant241
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. The petitioner in the above C.R.P. had challenged the order dt. 31-3-2003 in Arbitration Case No. 1/2001. The Arbitration case was dismissed on the ground of delay.2. Before proceeding further, I feel it appropriate to narrate in brief, few facts of the case relevant to decide this C.R.P. which are as here under:(i) That the petitioner had filed Arbitration case in A.C. 33/1998 on 3-11-1998 under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award dated SIS'1989 passed by the Arbitrator before the City Civil Court, Bangalore (henceforth for convenience referred to as 'Bangalore Court') to challenge the award passed by the Arbitrator in respect of certain dispute between the parties that arose in the matter of construction of 320 apartments in R.S. Nos. 210, 211 and 219 of Hunasikere in Hassan District and the construction in question was for the benefit of the slum dwellers. The arbitrator was the Chairman of the Housing Board, Bangal...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. B. Ramesh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3137; II(2006)DMC720; 2006(4)KarLJ635
V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.12.1999 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore, acquitting the respondent herein of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 304-B of the IPC.2. The prosecution case in brief is to the effect that the respondent herein got married to Stella Mary on 11.3.1996 and at the time of marriage a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was given as dowry Rs. 5,000/-worth clothes and a gold ring was also given. The couple lived happily for sometime, It was thereafter, the in-laws as well as the accused herein began to ill-treat the deceased Stella Mary and demanded that more dowry should be brought from her parents' house. The couple also had a four months' child at the time of incident in question. On 13.1.1998, at about 5.45 p.m. Stella Mary was admitted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, with burn injuries and she succumbed to the injuries on 16.1.1998 at about 5.40 a.m. PW 10 Dr. Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. EvulIn D'Souza W/o Late Hilari D'Souza Vs. the Authorised Officer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ682
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is before this Court challenging the order dtd 12-5-2005 passed in appeal No. 20/2005.2. Petitioner filed an application in form No.7A under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act seeking occupancy rights. The said application came to be rejected in terms of an order dt 2-12-2001. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, in appeal No. 20/2005. The tribunal has chosen to dismiss the appeal in terms of an order dtd 12-5-2005. This order is challenged in this writ petition.3. Petitioner would say that the appeal was posted for admission on 12-1-2005. Office raised objections in the matter. Clarification was sought for by the office. Office wanted the RTC record to be made available before admission. Matter was posted before the court for compliance of office objections on 11-2-2005. Learned Counsel for the petitioner required the petitioner to send the RTC of the schedule land. Petitioner sent an intimation...
Tag this Judgment!Sri K. Ramachandra Rao S/O Late K. Venkatanarayana Rao Vs. Sri K.G. Ra ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Kant247; ILR2006KAR2561; 2006(5)KarLJ273
ORDERAjit J. Gunjal, J.1. The question involved in these writ petitions is common. Consequently, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts relating to W.P. No. 48113/04 will be referred to during the course of this order.3. The petitioner is the owner of the property in question. The said property was leased to respondent under a lease deed dated 2.5.2002, a true copy of the said lease deed is at Annexure-A. In terms of the said lease deed, the respondent paid the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1.60 lakhs as refundable advance and agreeing to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 16,000/-. Notwithstanding the fact that the lease had expired and despite the request for vacating the premises, the respondent did not honour the said request. In the circumstances, a legal notice was issued. A copy of the legal notice is to be found at Annexure-B. Since the respondent did not vacate the premises even after termination of the lease, the petitioner was constrained to file an ejectm...
Tag this Judgment!Thirthesh A.S. Vs. Under Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Dep ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-21-2006
Reported in: AIR2007Kant37; ILR2006KAR4164; 2006(6)KarLJ92
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 6-3-2006 in W.P. No. 3132 of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition.2. The grievance of the appellant is regarding the attempt of respondents 3 and 4 to draw the proposed High Tension Power lines of 66 KV. over the land of the appellant. In the writ petition the petitioner (appellant herein) prayed for a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to consider the representations dated 5-1-2006 and 7-1-2006 (Annexures-G and H) submitted by the appellant treating them as his objections under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885. But the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer observing that if the petitioner were to cause obstruction while fixing the electrical power lines, it is open to the respondents to move the appropriate authority for necessary orders in accordance with the provisions of the Telegraph Act.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the appel...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Shivadas S/O V. Sreedharan Vs. Ramanath Shetty S/O S.H. Setty and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2006CriLJ3392
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellant-complainant prosecuted the accused for an offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. It is the case of the complainant that towards repayment of legal liabilities arising out of the business transaction, the cheque Ex.P.1 for Rs. 30,000/- is issued. Upon presentation the cheque is dishonored. Ex.P.2 is the endorsement regarding the dishonor issued by the bank dated 17-8-1998. The legal notice is issued on 24-8-1998. The said notice is received on 2-9-1998 by the accused and has given reply as per Ex.P.8. The complaint is presented on 14-9-1998.3. The trial court after recording evidence, dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused on the ground that it is a case of premature presentation of the complaint. The complaint is presented before the completion of the statutory waiting period and that there is no cause of action as on the date of complaint Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.4. The Supreme Court in Narsingh Das Tapadi...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Mallegowda S/O. Late Muthige Gowda Vs. Kariyappa Gowda S/O. Deveg ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ623
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.2.2004 passed in R.R. No. 72/1999 on the file of the II Addl, District Judge, Mysore which order has arisen out of the order dated 27.1.1999 passed in H.R.C. No. 170/1993 on the file of the IV Addl. I Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Mysore as per Annexure-B.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the respondent herein is the owner of the premises namely, Door No. 120, 6th Min, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore. The writ petitioner herein is a tenant under the respondent. Therefore, the respondent-owner has filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 on the ground of personal use and occupation for himself and his son. The said premises was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- commencing from the first of each calendar month. It is the case of respondent-landlord t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Admar Mutt and Sri Ramachandra Rao S/O P.R. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Sr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-20-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)KarLJ258
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner is before me challenging the order of the land tribunal dated 29-1-2003 Annexure-J in the case on hand.Facts in brief are as under;Sri Rama Shetty, was a tenant of several lands. However he was not a tenant of land measuring 14 acres 13 cents in Sy. No. 48/2; 3 acres 21 cents in sy.No. 347/1. He was also not the tenant of 3 acres in Sy.No. 347/1, 21 cents in sy.No. 46/5A, 24 cents in sy.No. 31/5A, 1 cent in sy.No. 46/1. This petition is confined to the lands in 14 acres 13 cents in sy.No. 48/2, 2 acres 32 cents in sy.No. 347/1, 68 cents in sy.No. 347/1, 21 cents in sy.No. 46/5A, 24 cents in sy.No. 31/5A, 1 cent in sy.No. 46/1. Rama Shetty is no more and he is represented by his legal representatives respondents 1 to 7. Rama Shetty filed form No. 7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of 26 lands situated in Shivalli village. In that form No. 7 he had claimed 4 acres 13 cents in Sy. No. 48/2, 3 acres 21 cents in sy.No. 347/1 only. However he had not cla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »