Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR608; 2004(7)KarLJ677
ORDERN. Kumar, J 1. In all the above Writ Petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their lands by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of Visweshwaraiah Layout. As common questions of law and facts do arise for consideration in all these Writ Petitions, they are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in all these petitions could be broadly classified as under:-(a) The owners of lands who are either cultivating the land personally or who have put up constructions on the said lands and using them either for residential purposes, non-residential purposes or industrial purposes.(b) The owners of sites; (i) Who have purchased sites in agricultural lands.(ii) Who have purchased sites in layouts which are not approved and formed in agricultural lands.(iii) Who have purchased sites in layouts which are formed after conversion and after obtaining the necessary permission/sanction from the local authorities.(iv) Who have purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(1)KarLJ210
The Court1. The facts which are not in dispute are that the respondent was appointed as additional teacher at St. Mary's English Medium School (Primary Section), Udupi, which is an unaided school and run by religious and linguistic minority. The appointment order dated 31-5-1996 specifically provided that the respondent was on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment and that the said term could be extended for a further period of one year. However, before the expiry of the probation period of one year, by an order dated 9-5-1997 the service of the respondent was terminated. The said order was challenged by the respondent under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, before the II Additional District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. The only contention of the respondent before the EAT was that the termination order was issued without assigning any reasons and without following the statutory rules and the principles o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ75
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision arrived at on 8-3-1995 at the meeting of Divisional Controller, Hassan District, Hassan, District Superintendent of Police, Hassan, Divisional Traffic Officer, Hassan Division, Hassan in presence of All India Tourist Omni Bus Owners and communicated to the petitioner vide annexure-A and B dated 8-3-1995 and 20-3-1995 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also challenged the notifications dated 6-3-1994 and 28-3-1994 copies of which have been annexed as annexure-C and D to the writ petition.2. Petitioner is the holder of All India Tourist Vehicles Permit issued by Karnataka State Transport Authority enabling the petitioner to ply the Tourist Bus all over India subject to the conditions viz, in Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the additional conditions prescribed under Rule 85 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. According to the petitioner one of the conditions is that the Tourist Vehicle shall not be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3146; 2006(4)KarLJ213
1. This is yet another unfortunate case of dowry death, which we have to deal in appeal.2. The respondents are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased Gayithri.3. The (SIC) appeal in Crl.A. No. 643/2005 is by the State aggrieved by the acquittal of respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC, whereas the (SIC) appeal in Crl.A.No. 1771/2004 is by the respondents assailing the order of conviction by the trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.4. The prosecution case in brief is to the effect that deceased - Gayithri was given in marriage to respondent No. 1 and the marriage took place on 26.6.1995. PW.1 is the father of deceased - Gayithri. It is the prosecution case that at the time of marriage, the accused persons demanded Rs. 20,000/- towards dowry, out of which PW.1 paid Rs. 12,000/- towards dowry and in addition Rs. 2,000/- towards clothes and Rs. 1,000/- for watch ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.7/2015, registered by Nippani Town P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411 of IPC and Sections 86, 87 of K.F. Act.) 1. The petitioners in both the petitions are before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.116/2015 and 127/2015 rejecting their prayer to enlarge them on bail in Crime No.07/2015 2. A gist of the prosecution case is as follows: The complainant is the CPI, Nippani Circle. It is stated that on 22.01.2015 at about 3:30 p.m. on receipt of credible information, the complainant marshalled his staff and co-panchas and thereafter proceeded in their Jeeps and occupied a spot near Laxmi Petrol Bunk on AH-7 and remained there is an inconspicuous manner and at about 4:15 p.m. they observed one red colored car and one truck, behind the truck one silvered c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dated 29.01.2016 passed in Application No. 7972/2011 vide Annexure-A and order dated 1.07.2016 passed in Review Application No. 144/2016 in Application No. 7972/2011 vide Annexure-B and etc.,) 1. The petitioner has sought for setting aside the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore., in Application No. 7972/2011 vide Annexure-A, and order dated 01.07.2016 in Review Application No. 144/2016 vide Annexure-B and quashing the order of penalty imposed on him on 27.06.2016 in departmental proceedings, in order No. Sibbandi (2)DE/02/2011-12, O.B.No.187/16-17 vide Annexure-L and such other reliefs. 2. The facts in brief are that, the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Police Constable on 02.05.2007.on 17.03.2011 petitioner s wife made a complaint against him alleging physical and mental c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1992CriLJ1606; 1991(2)KarLJ375
ORDER1. Since common question of law is involved in these petitions, they are clubbed together and a common order is passed.2. The points for consideration in both the petitions are :-1. Whether Police can take steps of taking measurements or photographs of unconvicted persons in the absence of any sanction from the competent authority ? 2. Whether prescription mentioned in the Police Manual can be said has force of law or otherwise ? 3. Whether provisions of Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920 is subservient to the Karnataka Police Act and Police Manual or otherwise ?3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner No. 1 in the first petition in an official employed in Government Bangalore Diary. Petitioner No. 2 is the owner of Lorry and running an Automobile Workshop. Petitioner No. 1 in the second writ petition is a Jr. Telecom Officer which is one of the departments of Union of India. Petitioner No. 2 in the second writ petition is the Silk Merchant of Bangalore C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(2004)DMC753; ILR2003KAR4076
Sreedhar Rao, J.1. This petition is filed for quashing of the proceedings in P.C. No. 38/02 on the file of C J M Bellary. The petitioners are the accused. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr .C alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 494, 494A and 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr P.C. and after registration of the case in Crime No. 191/02 the accused were arrested . The said proceedings are challenged as illegal and seek quashing of the same. 2. The facts reveal that except the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC rest of the offences are cognizable and could be investigated by the Police for launching the prosecution. The provisions of Section 198 of Cr P.C. mandates that the Court shall not take cognizance of offences relating to Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint by the aggrieved persons or the relatives with the leave of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1994KAR3143
ORDERVasantha Kumar, J. 1. This Revision is directed against the order dated 6-7-94, wherein objections raised by the tenant regarding admissibility of an instrument purported to be a lease transaction for a period of eleven months was over-ruled and the trial Court permitted the landlord to produce and get the instrument marked as exhibit by way of legal evidence.2. Few facts to briefly state are : The landlord initiated eviction proceedings under Clause (h) of Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 against the tenant, the proceeding being numbered as HRC 10583/93. Tenant contested the matter and denied the relationship of Landlord and Tenant as between the parties to the cause. During the pendency of the proceedings, landlord intended to place reliance on a Deed of Lease said to have been executed by the tenant Smt Leelamma Samuel to prove jurisdictional issue namely existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in view of specific denial o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003(3)KarLJ578
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. W.P. Nos. 23550 to 23554, 25265 to 25272, 28992 to 29016 and 26975 to 26997 of 2001.Since the constitutional validity of amended Sections 15-A and 32 to the Karnataka Excise Act is challenged in all these writ petitions and since the same questions of law are involved, all these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.2. All the petitioners are hoteliers running non-vegetarian hotels and restaurants. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 28992 to 29016 are the hoteliers running non-vegetarian hotels and restaurants at Belgaum City. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 25265 to 25272 are running their restaurants at Gadag Town, so is petitioners in W.P. Nos. 23550 to 23554 at Dharwad and petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26975 to 26997 at Gadag Town.3. They all contend in their writ petitions that they have no licence to vend liquor at their restaurants though most of them have applied for grant of excise licences in this regard. Customers who visit their hotels purchas...
Tag this Judgment!