Karnataka Court August 2006 Judgments

R. Veeranna S/O Late B. Rudraiah Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERMohan Shantanagoudar, J.1. Petitioner has sought for quashing the endorsements dated 4.2.2003 and 18.3.2003 vide Annexures-D' & 'E' respectively issued by the 3rd respondent - Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and the notice dated 27.6.2003 vide Annexure-'C' issued by the 2nd respondent-District Magistrate, Bangalore Urban District.2. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of both the parties and perused the material on record.3. Petitioner is the owner of 20 guntas of land forming part of Survey No. 54/2A of Nagadevanahalti village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said land is converted for the use of non-agricultural purposes under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Petitioner applied for grant of No Objection Certificate for constructing Permanent Cinema Theatre on 12.2.1992. Thereafter petitioner filed an application before the 2nd respondent-District Magistrate on 17.8.2001 seeking permission or No Objection Certificate for locating per...

Nagappa S/O Appayya Budag, Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

1. These two criminal appeals are directed against the same Judgment and Order of the trial Court dated 25.3.2003 and hence they are conveniently dealt with/heard together and are accordingly disposed of by this common judgment2. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the trial Court has convicted the Accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 504, 506, 302, 307 and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC. It has further convicted the Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act. The above said accused persons have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various terms including the life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC. The Accused No. 1 has been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for the offence under Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act All the sentences imposed against the accused are directed to run concurrently. They are also held to be entitled to the ben...

N. Shaik Sab Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who has filed an application for grant of mining lease in respect of an extent of 360 acres of land in Block 13 of Joga Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary, in response to a notification No. CI 33 MMM 1994, Bangalore, dated 15.3.2003, copy at Annexure-A to the petition. It is stated that the application is filed under Rule 22 of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules')2. Grievance of the petitioner is that though this application under Rule 22 in the prescribed Form-A was made as on 29.9.2004 and more than a year from the date of the application has elapsed the respondents have not considered and passed orders on the application of the petitioner, that the petitioner had made representation in this regard on 28.6.2006, copy at Annexure-C to the petition, even then there being no response, the present writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to consider the appl...

Sri N. Shaik Sab S/O Late N. Yamanura Sab Vs. the State of Karnataka, ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Writ petition by a person who has filed an application for grant of mining lease in respect of an extent of 360 acres of land in Block 13 of Joga Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary, in response to a notification No. CI 33 MMM 1994, Bangalore, dated 15.3.2003, copy at Annexure-A to the petition. It is stated that the application is filed under Rule 22 of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').2. Grievance of the petitioner is that though this application under Rule 22 in the prescribed Form-A was made as on 29.9.2004 and more than a year from the date of the application has elapsed the respondents have not considered and passed orders on the application of the petitioner; that the petitioner had made representation in this regard on 28.6.2006, copy at Annexure-C to the petition, even then there being no response, the present writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to consider the app...

Sri D.A. Panduranga Shet S/O Anantha Nagappa Shet, Vs. Sagar Town Poli ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2008)DMC822; ILR2007KAR4552; 2008(4)KarLJ559

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Time prayed for by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 is refused, on the ground that this Court has already heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners on the last date of hearing, so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1.2. This revision petition is filed by the petitioners 1 to 4 to set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimoga dated 19/3/2003 in Crl.R.P. 4/2002 reversing the order of discharge dated 16/10/2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & J.M.F.C. Sagar in C.C. No. 270/2000.3. Assailing the said order, the revision petitioners 1 to 4 have come up with this revision petition mainly on the ground that the Sessions Judge has failed to take note of the complaint lodged by Smt. Vinoda as barred by limitation. As such the complaint was filed after a lapse of six years of marriage. So also the learned Session Judge failed to take note that petitioners-2 and 3 are aged per...

Hanamappa M. Madar Vs. State by Police Sub-inspector

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ377

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in S.C. No. 64 of 2002 whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:The appellant-accused had married Husanawwa, the deceased about 4 years back and a son was born from the said wedlock. The accused used to suspect the chastity of his wife alleging that she has illicit relationship with others and he used to ill-treat and beat her. Yamanappa, brother of the accused advised him not to ill-treat his wife. The accused even made allegations that his brother Yamanappa had also illicit relationship with his wife-Husanawwa. On account of these allegations Husan...

G. Siddalingaiah S/O Late Mariyappa Vs. Sudha Devi S. J. D/O Jayakeert ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.The petitioner had joined the services of the fifth respondent University as a Typist with effect from 24.1.1974 in a clear vacancy. The petitioner by virtue of seniority and qualification was promoted as a Stenographer on 27.4.1984. This promotion was subject to the condition that the petitioner would qualify passing in Senior Shorthand English and Kannada within a period of two years namely 27.4.1984. This condition was extended by a further period of one year from 26.4.1985. The petitioner's seniority was maintained in the cadre of Stenographer and he was ultimately confirmed in the post of Stenographer with effect from 27.11.1984 by virtue of an order passed on 4.8.1986, This was in accordance with the statute 30.3(b) of the sixth respondent University. The confirmation was after taking into consideration the seniority, experience, qualification of the petitioner and other employees along with him. The petitioner had passed all Departmental Examinations and ...

Muniyappa H. Vs. M. Subbarayan Since Dead by His Lrs.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR3068

ORDERJawad Rahim, J.1. This revision Under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure is directed against order passed in M.A. No.72/2001 dated 9.2.2004 by the Learned Principal civil Judge (Sr. Dn)., Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore confirming the order dated 6.7.2001 passed on IA No. VI in O.S. No. 245/92 by the Learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), at Anekal, directing petitioner be detained in civil prison for a term of ten days for disobedience of interim order.2. The Factual matrix manifesting from the record indicates the following:One M. Subbarayan Instituted the suit before the Learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), at Anekal initially seeking a decree to restrain the defendant and others from interfering with his possession of the property described in schedule and for costs. He claims title and ownership in respect of land in Sy. No. 61/1 measuring an extent of 4 acres 27 guntas situated in Hebbagodi Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk contending that the defenda...

Smt. Mymoona Vs. H.M. Trading Company and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(5)KarLJ633; ; 2007(1)KCCR721; 2007(2)AIRKarR254; AIR2007NOC947.

ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, these petitions are heard and disposed of by this Court by a common order.2. The petitioner and respondents are one and the same and the revision petitioner in both the cases challenges the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.3. For the sake of convenience and also to avoid repetition of facts, both petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.4. The petitioner in both the cases is an accused in C.C. Nos. 60 and 61 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class-V, Mangalore. The Trial Court after considering the materials placed on record by both the parties convicted the revision petitioner in both the cases directed him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/...

Mahaboob Khan S/O Sadullah Khan Vs. Mohamed Khasim S/O Mohammed Ghouse ...

Court: Karnataka

N.K. Patil, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 10th September 2004 in R.A. No. 50/1996 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Senior Division) and C.J.M., Kolar by confirming the judgment and decree dated 29th February 1996 in O.S. No. 3/1991 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Kolar, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff - respondent.2. The respondent herein - plaintiff since dead is represented by his legal representatives. Respondent -plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and possession in respect of 'B' schedule property measuring 9 ft. x 10 ft. bounded by east - house of defendant ; west and north remaining property of plaintiff and south by road marked as a, e, f and g in the rough sketch bearing Municipal khata No. 1133 and assessment No. 1297 at Kolar town contending that, the respondent - plaintiff had acquired 'A' schedule property under a partition effected between himself and his brothers under the registered partition deed dated ...