Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2005(4)SC5; 2005(4)KarLJ145; (2005)11SCC130
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The appellant herein is the owner of three shops situate in Kollegal Town, which is a town municipal council constituted as such under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The appellant filed eviction petitions under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (since repealed) for eviction of the respondents-tenants on the ground of bona fide need for personal occupation. Eviction was ordered by the learned Munsif. The District Judge, Mysore confirmed the eviction order on a revision filed by the aggrieved tenants under Section 50(2) of the said Act. Thereupon, the respondents filed further revisions before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During the pendency of revisions in the High Court, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force on and from 31st December, 2001. Before the revision petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the tenants filed a Memo stating that the premi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003CriLJ4258; ILR2003KAR3505
ORDERBhakthavatsala, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401of Cr P.C. is directed against the order dated 20-12-1999 passed inC.C. No. 2195/1995 on the file of the I Additional C.M.M, BangaloreCity discharging the accused for the offences under Section 448and 427 of IPC on the ground that trial did not commence thoughthe case is pending for more than two years, on the basis of thejudgment of Apex Court rendered in 'COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA, ILR 1996 KAR 2063' . 2. The respondent is represented by Sri M.T. Nanaiah, Sri H.S. Chandramouli, learned S.P.P. assisted the Court.3. Heard arguments.4. The petitioner is referred to as 'the complainant' and the respondent as 'the accused' as arrayed in the Trial Court.5. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Revision petition may be stated as under:The complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C. against the accused, in PCR No. 19/1995 on the file of I Additional C.M.M., Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001CriLJ3857
ORDER1. One Noorunissa Begum aged about 28 years wife of the late Shaik Chand, and Shaik Saida, wife of late Karnal aged about 60 years, the mother of Shaik Chand filed the writ petition to issue writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not conducting enquiry and failing to pay compensation to the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for consequential direction to the respondents to conduct enquiry and pay compensation for death of Shaik Chand husband of thefirst petitioner and son of second petitioner in judicial custody.2. It is submitted that the first petitioner's husband Shaik Chand was an auto-driver and having seven children and aged parents and was maintaining his family solely on the earnings from auto-driving. Shaik Chand was falsely implicated in criminal Case No.2 of 1991. According to the case of the prosecution on 24-12-1990 he quarrelled with some boys with the result one of the boys lost teeth. On this ground he was arrested and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)3MLJ982
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Review petition arises against the order dated 02.03.2006 passed in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 878 of 2002, which itself was preferred against the order dated 08.04.2002 made in R.C.A. No. 853 of 1997 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.2. Originally R.C.O.P. No. 2229 of 1995 was filed before the Rent Controller (XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai, for eviction on the ground of wilful default. The Rent Controller has dismissed the eviction petition. That dismissal was on the ground that there was a bona fide denial of title. Subsequently, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that there was no bona fide dispute regarding the title and the balance of convenience rests with the landlord and therefore based upon such other matters, eviction was ordered. It is against the said order of R.C.A., the Civil revision petition was preferred by tenant Balakrishnan. The civil revision petition was dismissed on 02.03...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
U.V. Bakre, J. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the Judgment dated 14/11/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 282 of 1999 has been challenged. 2. Facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, in short, are as follows : Eviction proceedings were initiated against the deceased appellant no.1 and his wife, the appellant no. 2(defendants) by respondents no. 2 to 7 and two others (plaintiffs), by way of Regular Civil Suit No. 267/1975 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. The suit house is the house bearing Village Panchayat No. 525 situated at Taleigao. The Plaintiffs contended that the suit house was built up by one Radhabhai Khandeparkar alias Oidem, in the property of the plaintiffs with their permission and she was residing there alone as licensee and died in 1975 without leaving any heirs and upon her death, the suit house remained closed. The plaintiffs further claimed that on or about 28/07/1975, the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
1. The defendant is the appellant. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction on the strength of title. Though the plaintiffs took the stand that Ext.A-1 agreement is for a lease and not a licence, both the courts below have found that it is only a licence and not a lease. But both the courts below concurrently found that the plea of the defendant that Ext.A-1 agreement amounted to an irrevocable licence under Sec.60(b) of the Easements Act, is without any substance and that the trial court accordingly, decreed the suit, which has been affirmed by the lower appellate court. 2. The plea of the defendant is that Ext.A-1 amounts to an irrevocable licence and that he constructed the existing permanent structure over the property in question (plaint B schedule property) and that he is running a hotel therein and that he is entitled for the protection of the irrevocability of the licence in view of Sec.60(b) of the Easements Act and that accordingly, he is not entitled to be evic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD711; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)50; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)161
ORDERRamesh Madhav Bapat, J1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.128 of 1998, which was decided by the Learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada, is the appellant herein. The accused-appellant was tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of (1) his mother,Subbayyamma (D1), (2) his brother Satyanarayana (D2) and (3) his sister-in-law Parvathi (D3) by hacking them with a knife on 8-12-1997 at 3.00 a.m., at A.K. Mallavaram village. On evidence, the learned Judge found the accused-appellant guilty and, therefore, sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.2. The prosecution story can be briefly narrated as follows : PW3 was the mother-in-law of Satyanarayana (D2). Her daughter Parvathi (D3) was given in marriage to Satyanarayana (D2). The accused was the elder brother of Satyanarayana (D2). The accused along with his wife and children...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)ALD223; 2002(6)ALT170
ORDERDubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 18.12.1999 in CMA No.36 of 1999 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati confirming the order dated 3-12-1999 in IA No.2111 of 1997 in OS No.1075 of 1997 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.2. Necessary facts for the disposal of this revision petition are as follows:The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.1075 of 1997. They were owning immovable property in Tirumala Hills. They were doing business in the shops situated in their own properly. Those shop rooms and adjacent immovable property were acquired for the purpose of Tirumala Tirupati Devastlianams (hereinafter called as 'TTD'). They were given compensation for acquisition of their properties. In addition to giving monetary compensation to the plaintiffs, the TTD agreed to construct some shop rooms in Second Sannadhi Street in Tirumala and allot some shop rooms to the plaintiffs. TTD d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR136(Jhr)]
Lakshman Uraon, J.1. Appellant Paresh Mandal has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7th February, 2001 and 22nd February, 2001 respectively, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 162 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, he was convicted under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve years whereas other co-accused persons are acquitted for the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant Manindra Nath Mandal (PW 1) in his fardbayan (Ext. 8), recorded by the Sri Pradeep Kumar, SI, Sindri (Goshala) Police Station, District Dhanbad, on 6.7.1998 at 15.30 hours at Mandal Tola, Kandra, has stated that his daughter Sumitra Mandal aged about 27 years was married with the appellant in the year, 1993. After marriage, appellant used to torture Sumitra Mandal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3958
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. In this petition filed Under Section 397 r/w. S. 401 Cr. P.C., the challenge is to an order made by the JMFC, Ron, on 4-12-82 in C.C. 658/82 on his file issuing process to the petitioner for an offence under Section 302 r/w. 109 IPC.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner in the matter, a few facts which are not in dispute may be stated :The proceeding in the Court below in C.C. 658/82 was initiated by the first respondent Mallanagouda by filing a complaint therein under Section 200 Cr. P.C. (Code). Hiscase was that 4 persons mentioned in his complaint as Accused 1 to 4 had during the night between 13th and 14th of March 1982 at Arahunshi, Taluk Ron of District Dharwad assaulted Shantavva and Basanagouda and that due to that assault Shantavva had sustained injuries and Basanagouda had died: that they had done so at the instance of the 5th accused Kedargouda (petitioner herein): that, the Ron police who had registered a case for these offe...
Tag this Judgment!