Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-12-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR1691
Mohan, C.J. 1. The short facts leading to the appeal are as follows:The appellant was working as Assistant Public Prosecutor. Consequent to his appointment as such on 23-9-1969, he was posted to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Manvi during the year 1975. On 11-12-1975 a trap case was laid. When the appellant was sitting in the Bar Association of Manvi, one person by name Narasappa came at 12-20 p.m. and paid money for the proper conduct of his father's case. At the time when the money was received by the appellant, the Anti-Corruption Officers caught the appellant and seized the currency notes. Those currency notes were subjected to phenolphthalein test, Panchanamas were drawn and the statement of the appellant was taken. As a result, it was concluded that the said Narasappa had approached the appellant and the appellant had taken Narasappa to the Bar Association of the Manvi Court where the appellant demanded Rs. 50/- for the conduct of the case effectively. The of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-23-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR602; 1991(1)KarLJ316
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners against the order passed in M.C. No. 23 of 1989 dated 18-6-1990 by the Civil Judge, Gadag, praying therein to set aside the impugned order and to grant a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved under Sub-section (2) of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short).2. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioners were married according to Hindu rites on 18-12-1988 at Hole Alur in Ron taluk. After the marriage, they lived together for a period of one week in the first petitioner's house. But the second petitioner did not allow the 1st petitioner her husband to have any matrimonial connection with her. They started living separately from, each other after about three weeks of their marriage. They have not been able to live together and the marriage between them was completely broken and there was no possibility of reconciliation and, therefore, they filed a petition un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-02-1990
Reported in : ILR1990KAR4082
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the Cinematograph Act 1952 as amended by Act No. 49 of 1981 and the Cinematograph (Censorship) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and the 'Rules') are void and unenforceable. He has also sought for a direction restraining the respondent from enforcing the provisions of the Act and the Rules against the petitioner.2. Though in the petition the contentions are raised in a general manner relating to several provisions of the Act and the Rules, but during the course of argument, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner confined the case to the following contentions:That the Parliament was not competent to pass the Act; that Sections 3, 4 and 5D of the Act do not contain the guidelines, in as much as, no qualifications are prescribed for the members of the Board and the Appellate Tribunal, that Section 7 of the Act in so far it imposes the penalty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-27-1990
Reported in : I(1991)ACC421; 1991ACJ707; ILR1990KAR4300; 1990(3)KarLJ605
Venkatachala, J 1. The question, which has arisen for decision by this Full Bench on a reference by a Division Bench, is the following:'Whether, in a claim petition presented under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation for personal injury resulting from a motor accident as also compensation towards expenses incurred and towards loss of income etc., if the claimant dies during the pendency of the petition, his legal representative can come on record and continue the proceedings?'2. Circumstances, which led the Division Bench to refer the aforesaid question for decision by the Full Bench, need mention at the outset for a proper understanding of the question and a decision thereon.Out of the use of a passenger bus belonging to the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('The KSRTC') on Siddaiah Road, Wilson Gardens, Bangalore City, an accident occurred on 25-4-1983. One Muniswamy, a pedestrian, who was involved in that accident, sustained personal (bodily...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-21-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR577; 1991(4)KarLJ356
Ramakrishna, J.1. Since the facts and circumstances arising in this Appeal are not in dispute, we need not refer to the same. 2. Two contentions have been urged in support of this Appeal. Firstly, the election that has taken place pursuant to the Calendar of Events issued in the year 1984 is illegal as three persons viz., (1) Patel Lingappa - A Class Member, (2) K.M. Puttaswamy and (3) Karigowda - 3 Class members, having filed their nominations pursuant to the said Calendar of Events, died subsequently. Therefore, the Election Officer ought to have issued fresh Calendar of Events giving opportunity to those intending to file nominations afresh as required by law. Secondly, the view taken by the learned single Judge that when there was a provision for filing an election petition challenging the correctness of the election in question, this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with such an election, was incorrect and cannot be sustained.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-14-1990
Reported in : ILR1990KAR2521; 1990(2)KarLJ201
Murlidher Rao, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal against the Judgment and decree of District Judge, Bellary, in O.S.1 of 1975. Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 62 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951, (hereinafter called Act of 1951), in respect of an institution called 'Yerriswami Samadhl' situated in village Chellagurki, Bellary District. Plaintiffs styled themselves as a Committee of Management; admittedly it is not a Committee constituted under any Statute or by any statutory authority. Vital prayers in the suit, which are relevant, are as follows:-'(a) For cancellation of the order of the 1st defendant dated 8-10-1974 and for a declaration that the Jeeva Samadhi of Sri Yerriswami Thata situate at Chellaguriki is not a 'Temple' within the meaning of the Madras Acts of 1927 or 1951 and not subject to the purview of that Act;(b) for an injunction restraining the defendants and their Officers under the H.R. and C.E. Act from in any way ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-22-1990
Reported in : [1991(61)FLR708]; ILR1990KAR3568; 1990(3)KarLJ222
1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is presented by the defendant against the ad-interim order of injunction dated August 14, 1990 passed on I.A. No. 1 by XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 10573 of 1990. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against defendant-appellant seeking the following reliefs :- '.... a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Union, its members, associates or anybody acting through or for them - (i) from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the free movement of plaintiff's executives, contractors, staff, suppliers and other public from entering into and out of plaintiff's Hebbal plant; (ii) from interfering or obstructing the free movement of cars/vehicles and lorries carrying raw materials, intermediaries, end products into and of plaintiff's Hebbal plant; (iii) from endangering the life of persons, contractors, executives, staff of plaintiff and proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-13-1990
Reported in : ILR1990KAR2360
Mohan, C.J.1. The facts leading to this Writ Appeal are to be set out at some length. The appellant is the Professor of English and Head of the Department of English in the University of Mysore. In such capacity he was appointed every year as an Examiner. He was also the Chairman of Board of Examiners for English M.A. examination. The appointment of the Board of Examiners and Chairman is done for each year by the Syndicate under Section 25(2)(c) of the Karnataka State Universities Act (shortly referred to as the Act). For the year 1983, the appellant was appointed as Chairman of Board of Examiners. A complaint was submitted by a member of Syndicate of the Mysore University to the Chancellor stating that a candidate with a Code No. 9664 of M.A. previous Paper III English secured 27 by first valuation by the external examiner and 41 marks by II valuation by the internal examiner one Dr. Shankar. The difference between the above two examiners was only less than 20 marks. Therefore, there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-27-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1100; ILR1990KAR3821
ORDER1. 'Before parting with this case, we wish to observe that torturing suspects with a view to extorting information from them, is a crude, barbarous and reprehensible method of investigating and detecting crime. Those who are entrusted with the duty of enforcing the law, must learn to obey the law. In police investigation as in other matters, the end does not justify the means; the means are as important as the end'. These observations made by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as long back as 26-11-1963 in Public Prosecutor v. Shaik Ibrahim, 1964 (2) Cr. LJ 636 are again more eloquently echoed 25 years later in the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration, : 1988CriLJ1800 : 'This is an unfortunate case which tends to shake the credibility of police investigation and undermines the faith of common man in Delhi Police which is supposed to protect life and liberty of citizens and maintain law and order. There have...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-16-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR124
Navadgi, J. 1. In this proceeding initiated and commenced against B.H. Ravindra Pai and Abdur Rahim Ahmed, arraigned as A-1 and A-2 respectively, as a result of the Reference made by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short), a charge, was framed against B.H. Ravindra Pai (A-1) and Abdur Rahim Ahmed (A-2), hereinafter referred to as A-1 and A-2 respectively, for having committed the offence of criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. Both A-1 and A-2 pleaded not guilty to the offence charged and stated that they had defence to make.2. The Complainant, to establish the charge, has not adduced any oral evidence, but he has produced documentary evidence admitted in evidence and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-4 with the consent of A-1 and A-2.3. After the charge was framed and the plea was recorded and after the Complainant closed his side, A-1 filed his affidavit while A-2 submitted that h...
Tag this Judgment!