Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1081; 1989(1)KarLJ409
ORDERBopanna, J.1. Issues in this election petition were settled on 30-11-1988 and the case was posted for trial on 23-1-1989. Parties had filed their respective lists of documents and witnesses as directed by this Court and the case was taken up for trial on 23-1-1988. On that day Respondent-2 filed an application under Section 151, Order 14 Rule 2, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (In short the Act). In that application he had made the following prayer:a) that issue numbers 1 and 2 be tried as preliminaryminary issues. A finding thereon in favour of Respondent No. 2 will dispose of Issues 3 to 7, 14 and 16, and obviate recording of voluminous evidence;b) that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 83 of the Act the petition should be dismissed in limine and as that question is a pure question of law which could be decid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-08-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1695; 1989(1)KarLJ207
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate practising at Bangalore, has filed this Criminal Petitioner under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C. 1973, for quashing the proceedings pending against him in C.C. No. 37255/88 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court, Mayohall, Bangalore, for an offence under Clause (r) of sub-section (1) of S. 92 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, for short the 'Act'. 2. The said case is registered against the petitioner on the basis of a Petty Case Charge-sheet placed against him by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Seshadripuram Police Station, Bangalore-20. The allegations made against the petitioner in Column No. 7 of the Said chargesheet read as under :- 3. Acting on the above extracted allegations made in the Chargesheet, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has ordered on 22-10-1988 as under :- 'Issue summons to the accused' 4. The petitioner has contended in his petition that he has not committed the offence alleged against him and even if the en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-09-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR943
ORDER1. This is a petition under S. 458 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). Petitioner 1 is a Head Constable bearing Buckle No. 178, while petitioners 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are Constables (Members of State Police Force). 2. It is the case of the prosecution, as is seen from the record, that the petitioners were attached to Ranebennur Police Station at the material time and that they committed murder of one Guddappa who had been taken to the Police Station at Ranebenner on 20-10-1988 as a suspect in a case registered in Crime No. 168 of 1988 in the said Police Station. 3. The petitioners along with one other arraigned as co-accused with them approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 308 of 1988 for a direction under S. 438 of the Code to release them on bail in the event of their arrest. The learned Principal Sessions Judge by the order dated November 29, 1988 rejected their petition. The petitioners have renewed their requ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-17-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR823
ORDER1. In this petition under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C., hereinafter referred to as the 'Code', the petitioner has requested to quash the proceedings in C.Msc. No. 836/87 on the file of the Additional Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, and also to quash the order dt. 6-8-1988 made by the Additional Judge, Family Court (the Court for short) in C. Misc. No. 836 of 1987. The Office has raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition under S. 482 of the Code. 2. The record is perused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of maintainability of the petition. 4. The relevant facts to be noticed and referred to are these : Smt. Lakshmamma, the respondent herein, has filed a petition under S. 125 of the Code with a prayer to direct the petitioner herein to pay a monthly maintenance allowance. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed an application under S. 125 of the Code read with S. 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (the Act for short) or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-23-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ286; ILR1990KAR161; 1989(1)KarLJ346
ORDER1. This revision petition filed under S. 397 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 12-7-88 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Cr.A. No. 124/87 dismissing; the said appeal for nonappearance of the appellant and his learned counsel on the said date and also on the previous date of hearing. 2. The facts which have given rise to this revision petition are as under : Petitioner was accused in C.C. No. 5922 of 1984 on the file of the V Addl. Metropolitan prosecuted, Bangalore, in which he was Magistrate, Bangalore, in which he was prosecuted for offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. By judgment dt. 30-9-87, the learned V Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, convicted the petitioner-accused for offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under S. 279 IPC and Rs. 1000/- for the offence under S. 338 IPC, in all Rs. 1200/- with the usual default clause. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-29-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Kant56; ILR1989KAR1430
ORDER1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since the facts are common in all these petitions and certain common questions of law arise for consideration in all these petitions.2. En W.P. Nos. 14386 to 14390 of 1987. she petitioners are the builders, owners of high rise residential apartment buildings and it is common ground that they had put up these high rise buildings in accordance with the plans sanctioned by the Corporation of City of Bangalore which is the 1st respondent herein. They are aggrieved by the notices issued by the Corporation which are produced as Annexure-A to E in these petitions. By those notices, the Commissioner for Corporation who is the 1st respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) had called upon the petitioners to bring down the height of the building to 35' 55' with ground floor plus two, four upper floors respectively within 30 days from the date of receipt of these notices failing which they were warned that suitable act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-02-1989
Reported in : II(1989)ACC321; [1993]76CompCas135(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The plaintiffs are the petitioners in this revision petition. They are aggrieved by the framing of a fresh issue, which reads thus: 'Whether the plaintiff prove that the said accident was due to the negligence of the defendant?' 2. The suit is one for damages. According to the plaintiffs, they entrusted with the defendant certain goods for transportation from Bangalore to Raichure. The goods were delivered in a damaged condition. According to the plaintiffs, the consignment was carried in a lorry which, while in transit on October 11, 1974, dashed against a transformer post and as a result of the accident, the transformer caught fire and the goods in the said lorry got damaged on account of fire and in the course of fire- fighting operations. The damaged consignments were collected by the defendant and despatched to the second plaintiff's office and delivered at Bangalore. The accident aforesaid was caused due to the negligence of the defendant. At para 10 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-30-1989
Reported in : ILR1990KAR717; 1989(2)KarLJ245
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1.Smt. T.N. Manjuladevi, learned High Court Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2.2. Having purchased 1 acre 2 guntas of land in Sy.No. 128 of Hullekere village, Gandasi Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, under two registered sale deeds from respondents-3 and 4 for valuable consideration on 14-6-1968 and 1-7-1968 respectively, the 1st petitioner became the owner in possession of the said land. The 2nd petitioner is the owner in possession of 24 guntas of land in Sy.No. 128 of the same village having purchased the said land under a registered sale deed dated 8-2-1968 for valuable consideration. The lands are stated to be Thalavar (Kuluvadike) Inam lands. The vendors of the petitioners-1 and 2 are admittedly' the holders of village office being Thalavars and they had applied to the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan, for regrant of the lands in their possession, in Sy.No. 128 of Hullekere village. The application was filed on 1D-2-1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-31-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ360; 1989(2)KarLJ95
ORDER1. This Revision Petition filed under S. 397 read with S. 401, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dt. 7-2-1989, passed by the J.M.F.C., Buadgi, in C.C. No. 5/88, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 447 and 323, I.P.C., alleged against the petitioners in the private complaint lodged against them by the respondent-complainant on 2-4-1985, alleging that the petitioners at about 5 p.m. on 22-3-1985 committed house trespass by entering into the house of the respondent-complainant at Hedigonda village and assaulted the respondent and his father with their hands and voluntarily caused hurt to them and thereby committed offences under Ss. 447 and 323, I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C. took cognizance of the said offences order dt. 1-1-1988 and ordered issue of process against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused entered appearance in the trial Court and after taking some adjournments filed an application on 15-12-1988 requesting the Court not to proceed against t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-31-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR2199
ORDER1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. ('the Code' for short). Gangadhara Shetty, the petitioner, has prayed to extend the benefit of the provisions contained in S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act ('the Act' for short) to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The petitioner has filed his affidavit in support of the prayer and has also produced the certified copy of the judgment and order, dt. 16-1-1989 made by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 271/1988. 2. The record is perused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor are heard. 4. The matter arises in this way : The petitioner was tried of the offences punishable under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thithahalli, in C.C. No. 369/1984 on his file. The prosecution adduced evidence in support of the accusation. The learned trial Magistrate on consi...
Tag this Judgment!