Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR2420
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a decree holder's revision against the order dated 10-12-1981 passed by the Munsiff, Harapanahalli, in Execution Case No. 108 of 1981 ordering the re-transmission of the execution of the decree to the court of the Civil Judge at Davanagere, which had transferred the decree to it for execution.2. The decree holder had obtained a decree in S.C. No. 176/78 against the judgment debtor in the court of the Civil Judge, Davanagere. The said decree was transferred by the court of the Civil Judge, Davanagere, to the court of the Munsiff, Harapanahalli. The Munsiff, Harapanahalli, held that the Munsiff at Harapanahalli had not got the same small cause powers as those of the Civil Judge at Davanagere. Therefore, the transferee Court was not a Court competent to entertain and hear and try the small cause suit filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Davanagere, and decreed by it. Therefore taking this narrow view of the matter, he ordered the re-transmission of the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(2)KarLJ480
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The first petitioner is a premier educational society in the State of Karnataka which is running the second petitioner-college. The second petitioner-college was started in the year 1990 imparting B.Sc. Nursing course. The petitioners approached the Karnatak University seeking permission to start M.Sc. in Medical Surgical Nursing and Community Health Nursing with an intake capacity of 4 seats in each discipline. The Karnatak University recommended to the Government for granting permission to start the aforesaid courses by its letter dated 30-5-1996. However, from 1-6-1996 the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 came into force establishing the first respondent-University. The Government granted permission to the petitioner to start the aforesaid courses by its order dated 9th March, 1998. However, the permission was confined to only two seats in the aforesaid courses from the academic year 1998-99. The first respondent-University accorded continuati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR2081; 2003(2)KarLJ588
1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act read with Section 19 of the Family Court Act directed against the order dated 8-3-1999 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, at Bangalore in M.C. No. 117 of 1998 allowing the petition of the wife under Sections 10 and 11 of the Divorce Act partially and granting a decree for judicial separation.2. The wife being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, refusing her the full relief of dissolution of marriage and denying her a decree of divorce has come up in appeal.3. The first respondent-husband remained absent before the Court below and was set ex parte. The second respondent with whom it was alleged that the first respondent-husband was having an adulterous relationship had also been served but remained absent and has been set ex parte by the Court below.4. The position is the same in this appeal and the respondents have not contested the proceedings though served.5. The petition pleadi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1963)IILLJ694Kant
ORDERSomnath Ayyar, J.1. This case presents the question whether a Government servant can as of right claim legal representation in disciplinary proceedings falling within Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The argument that he could, is advanced on behalf of the petitioner before us who was dismissed from the post of a Commercial Tax Officer on the accusation that he received a bribe. 2. The material facts are these : On 27 March, 1959, when a certain Krishnamurthi Rao, a hotel-keeper of Chitradurga, complained at Bangalore to the Efficiency Audit and Anti-Corruption Department that the petitioner demanded a bribe, an Assistant Superintendent of Police of that department proceeded to Chitradurga and decided to set a trap. The currency notes proposed to be used at the trap were treated with a chemical and Krishnamurthi Rao was asked to deliver them to be petitioner and to make a signal when the bribe was received. On the night of 28 March, 1959, Krishnamurthi Rao, according to his story,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant69; AIR1961Mys69; 1961CriLJ398
ORDER1. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dharwar has made this reference in regard to proceedings in six criminal cases pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Third Court Cadag. The reference was made in consequence of revision petitions filed in each of the cases by the same person, Ranganagowda, who was arrayed as an accused in each one of the cases. The circumstances leading to the revision petitions are narrated in the order of the learned Judge resulting in the reference. In brief, it may he stated that in the course of investigation of a complaint of theft, the house of Ranganagowda was searched on 15-7-1952 and a large number of articles were seized. On the basis of the identification of articles by various persons who had laid complaints before the Police in respect of thefts alleged to have taken place from 25-6-1949 onwards the Cadag Town Police placed ten charge-sheets against Ranganagowda and others. While Ranganagowda figured in each one of the ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1963(7)FLR301]; ILR1962KAR690; (1963)IILLJ235Kant; (1963)1MysLJ200
ORDERHegde, J.1. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner, namely, the Printers (Mysore) (Private), Ltd., a limited company, has prayed for quashing the order passed by the labour court, Bangalore, on 31 August, 1960. Two different grounds are advanced in support of the petitioner's prayer. Firstly, it is contended that the impugned order is vitiated, as the presiding officer did not conform to the principles of natural justice. It is nextly urged that the order in question is an invalid order as it was made on a reference which was not subsisting on the date the same was passed, i.e., on 31 August 1960. 2. The facts material for the purpose of pronouncing on the contentions advanced before this Court are as follows : On 1 April, 1948 the petitioner appointed Mr. Pothan Joseph, respondent 1, as the editor of Deccan Herald, a paper run by the petitioner. On 1 April, 1948 the petitioner and the respondent 1 entered into a written agreement. As per the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)IILLJ177Kant
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. On 4 June 1962, Hussainsab Doddamani, who was a brakes man in the Southern Railway, was involved in a railway accident between Kundgol and Saunshi stations and died. The Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, Hubli, deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500 in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation; Dharwar, for payment of compensation to the dependents of the deceased Hussainsab. The appellant before us, who is the widow of Hussainsab, submitted her claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation both on her own behalf as well as on behalf of her children in January 1963. 2. But there was also a claim made by the widow for payment of compensation under S. 82A of the Indian Railways Act in the Court of the ex-officio Claims Commissioner and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, who made an order on February 16, 1963, that the railway administration should pay the compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,000 to the widow of the deceased Hussainsab. It is s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ107
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner claims that he is the President of Sri Basaveshwara Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Ranebennur, Haveri District. The Bank is registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('Act' for short).2. The expression 'Co-operative Bank' finds a place in the dictionary clause of the Act. It means, a Co-operative Society doing the business of banking.'Co-operative Society' is also defined to mean a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Act.3. The brief history of the case.--On 11-3-2000, elections were held to elect the managing committee of the aforesaid Co-operative Society for a period of five (5) years commencing from 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 (co-operative years). In the said elections, ten (10) members were elected for the committee of the management of the Co- operative Society.4. An unsuccessful candidate in the elections held, had filed a dispute before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Soci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997CriLJ398; ILR1996KAR3419; 1996(7)KarLJ503
1. The trial Court found the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. in its judgment and order dated 21-4-90 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for a period of 18 months. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga in S.C. No. 6/89, dated 21-4-1990, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal. 2. The facts of the case very briefly are :- The accused Manohar and the complainant Nagaraj P.W. 2 belong to the same age group and they were classmates in school and were friends. The said accused Manohar used to visit the house of P.W. 2 and also the cycle shop that was run by the family members of P.W. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when the accused-Manohar was visiting the cycle shop that was being run by the family members of P.W. 2, he was committing some petty thefts. This came to the knowledge of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1965Kant306; AIR1965Mys306; (1965)1MysLJ215
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) On June 4, 1962 Hussainsab Doddamani who was a brakes man in the Southern Railway was involved in a railway accident between Kundgol and Saunshi stations and died. The Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, Hubli, deposited a sum of Rs. 3,500/- in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dharwar, for payment of compensation to the dependents of the deceased Hussainsab. The appellant before us who is the widow of Hussainsab submitted her claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation both on her own behalf as well as on behalf of her children in January 1963.(2) But there was also a claim made by the widow for payment of compensation under section 82A of the Indian Railways Act in the court of the Ex-officio Claims-Commissioner and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharwar, who made an order on February 16, 1963 that the railway administration should pay the compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to the widow of the deceased Hussainsab. It ...
Tag this Judgment!