Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
KARLJ Rajmma vs Gangambika 1998 5 KARLJ 489 - Main points and insights:
The provided sources do not explicitly mention the case Rajmma v. Gangambika, 1998 5 KARLJ 489. However, the case citation indicates it is a decision from 1998 reported in the Karnataka Law Journal (KARLJ) volume 5, page 489.
The available references include various judgments from the Karnataka High Court and other courts that discuss legal principles such as the scope of jurisdiction, procedural correctness, and interpretation of statutes, but none directly refer to the specific case or its facts.
Notably, the case Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta (Regd.) (1998) 3 KARLJ 293 discusses the management of educational institutions and the applicability of UGC scales, which, although unrelated, exemplifies the court's approach to institutional disputes ["Prof. M. S. Ramaraju VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka"].
Other judgments, such as Mahalingaiah & others (2003) 3 KARLJ 445 and Divisional Controller, NWKRTC (2004) 6 KARLJ 493, emphasize the court's stance on administrative and disciplinary matters, but do not pertain to the Rajmma case ["G. V. Hugar VS Divisional Controller KSRTC Bangalore - Karnataka"].
The decision in Sri M. S. Krishna Murthy (1977) KARLJ 137 discusses the prohibition on reopening decisions under specific statutes, illustrating judicial restraint in certain administrative appeals, which may be relevant for understanding procedural issues in similar cases ["M. P. KENCHACHARY VS LAND TRIBUNAL, MUDIGERE - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
Since the specific case Rajmma v. Gangambika (1998) 5 KARLJ 489 is not directly cited or summarized within the provided materials, a precise main point or legal insight cannot be extracted from these sources.
The references predominantly cover judgments on administrative law, procedural correctness, and statutory interpretation within Karnataka jurisdiction, which may provide contextual legal principles but do not explicitly address the case in question.
Therefore, based on the available data, it is concluded that the provided sources do not contain a direct discussion or ruling on Rajmma versus Gangambika (1998 5 KARLJ 489). Further specific case details would be required for an accurate summary.
In the intricate world of Indian legal research, particularly within Karnataka's land law domain, citations like KARLJ Rajamma versus Gangambika (1998) 5 KARLJ 489 often spark curiosity. Legal professionals, researchers, and landowners frequently encounter such references in judgments related to tenancy, reforms, and property rights. But what does this case truly entail? This blog post dissects the citation, reviews available documentation, and contextualizes it within broader Karnataka land reforms jurisprudence. Note: This is general information based on reviewed materials and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
The query revolves around the case KARLJ Rajamma versus Gangambika 1998 5 KARLJ 489. Researchers often seek its holdings, ratio decidendi, or relevance to ongoing disputes under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (LR Act). Given the citation's appearance in Karnataka Law Journal (KARLJ), it likely pertains to land disputes, tenancy protections, or constitutional challenges—common themes in 1990s Karnataka jurisprudence. However, accessing precise details requires archival dives, as not all cases are digitized.
A meticulous examination of referenced documents reveals a striking absence of substantive discussion on this case. Here's a breakdown:
Conclusion from Review: No document provides the case's judgment details, holdings, or quotes. The citation appears isolated, without context in these materials. This underscores the challenges of relying solely on secondary references in legal research. Lakshminarayana Hariyachar VS Divisional Commissioner - 1985 0 Supreme(Kar) 562
Though direct content is elusive, the surrounding documents suggest Rajamma versus Gangambika fits into Karnataka's robust land reform framework. The LR Act, 1961, and its amendments frequently litigated issues like tenancy rights, inam abolitions, and constitutional protections under Article 31A.
These echo potential themes in Rajamma, possibly involving land possession, tenant evictions, or reform compliance.
Additional materials reinforce land law's complexity:
| Theme | Key Document | Holding Summary ||-------|--------------|-----------------|| Tenancy Rights | HANMAWWA VS VENKATESH DEVARU - 1978 Supreme(Kar) 52 | Amendments remove exemptions for institutions. || Constitutional Validity | P. N. SUBRAMANIYAM VS STATE OF KARNATKA - 1975 Supreme(Kar) 165 | LR Act amendments protected by Constitution. || Inam Abolition | S M Kannappa Automobiles VS Koladamatt Mahasamsthana, - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 640 | Tenants gain occupancy; inamdars lose if no claim. || Procedural Compliance | Bheemannagouda VS State Of Karnataka - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 1107 | Strict adherence to Cr.P.C. Section 195. |
KARLJ, a premier Karnataka reporter, archives High Court and tribunal decisions. Volume 5, 1998, page 489 likely details a dispute over land occupancy or reform violations. Absence in modern databases highlights the need for physical libraries or platforms like Manupatra/Indian Kanoon. Researchers may find parallels in cases like State of Karnataka (1977) 1 KARLJ 409 from Document HANMAWWA VS VENKATESH DEVARU - 1978 Supreme(Kar) 52. HANMAWWA VS VENKATESH DEVARU - 1978 Supreme(Kar) 52
This exploration aids navigating opaque citations while spotlighting enduring land law principles. Stay informed on Karnataka reforms, as they influence countless property matters today.
Word of Caution: Legal outcomes vary by facts; this overview draws from specified sources and serves educational purposes only.
#KarnatakaLaw, #LandReformsCase, #KARLJCaseLaw
The Management of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta (Regd.) , Bangalore and Another, (1998) 3 KarLJ 293 ... 6. Per contra, Mr. A.Y.N. ... The Management of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta (Regd.) , Bangalore and Another, (1998) 3 KarLJ 293 has ruled in para 11, after referring to the Judgment in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others ... ... 5. Sri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Counsel took me through the pleadings and took me through the material facts t....
Mahalingaiah & another, (2003) 3 KarLJ 445 and between Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Hubli Vs., A T Mane, (2004) 6 KarLJ 493 (SC) and held that when guilt is proved, the Labour Court cannot interfere on the ground of disproportionate punishment. ... ... 5. It is further submitted that charge sheet reveals that there was history of 125 cases of this nature, no documents were produced, the same could not have been considered. ... The Labour Court also referred judgment of this Court between Divisional Controller, North West Karnataka Road....
... ( 5 ) SRI M. S. ... Krishna Murthy air. 1977 Karlj. 137= (1977) 1 Karlj. 389. where in it has been laid down that S. 141 of the Karnataka Act 10 of 1962 prohibits the Tribunal from reopening or annulling the decision of the Special Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Abolition Act con- lerring ... Land Reforms Tribunal, Ramanagaram 1977 (1) Karlj. 334. wherein in regard to a similar matter, this Court has held that in view of section 126 of the Act the 'land Reforms Tribunal, Ramanagaram,, was not right in directing ....
H.Hariyappa, Sub-Inspector, Jeevanbheema Nagar, Police Station, Bengaluru and Another, (2018) 1 KarLJ 469 5. Sri F.J.M.Crasta vs. ... State of Bihar and Another, (1998) 2 SCC 493 3. Thipparaju vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 4 KarLJ 695 4. Dr.K.P.Gopal Krishna vs. ... 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate and the proceedings initiated by filing the charge sheet are not in accordance with law.
State of Karnataka ( (1977) 1 Karlj. 409. ). ... ( 4 ) BUT, Mr. K. S. ... ... ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the averments in the plaint since the plaintiffs; themselves have admitted the defendant ag tenant in occupation of the lands, the suit for possession cannot be maintained. ... Sashikumar ( (1975) 1 Karlj. 241 ). We must also refer to Sec. 133 as amended by the Second Amendment Act, 1974. The said section was made applicable to all proceedings pending before any Civil Court in appeal or revision.
State of Kar, (1974) 2 Karlj. 439. and in Deputy Commr, chitradurga v. Gangaiah (1975) 2 Karlj. 143. and in Jayalakshmi Trading Co v. ... ... ( 5 ) IN these petitions we are concerned with the meaning to be given to the expression 'judicial Authority' mentioned in S. 6c of the Essential commodities Act as the appellate authority to be appointed by the State govt to hear appeals ... State of Kar (1975) 2 Karlj. 143. this Court entertained revision petitions against the orders passed by the District and Sessions Judges in....
" ... ( 5 ) IT is not correct to say that the State Govt had acquired the right to recover the arrears of rent due for the period prior to the date of vesting of the lands under the above provision of law. ... State of Karnataka, (1975) 2 Karlj. 157. the validity of Ss. 48 and 48a of the Act as amended by Kar Act 1 of 1974 has been upheld rejecting the contention that by enacting the said provisions the State Legislature had altered the basic features of the Constitution. ... State of Karnataka, AIR. 1975 Kar. 55= (1974) 2 Karlj. 509. it ....
State of Karnataka ILR. 1975 Kar. 1481 = (1975) 2 Karlj, 157. ... ( 2 ) IT is however contended by Sri T. ... State of Karnataka AIR. 1975 Kar. 55= (1974) 2 Karlj. 509. I have upheld the validity of the Karnataka Act 1 of 1974 being of the opinion that it is protected by Art. 31a of the Constn.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2017(2) KARLJ 229, the fact admittedly petitioner had made the subject application in came to be loaded to the Statute Book vide Notification dated 06.11.1988 with effect from 09.11.1998
STATE OF KARNATAKA., 2017(2) KARLJ 229, the admittedly petitioner had made the subject application in came to be loaded to the Statute Book vide Notification dated 06.11.1988 with effect from 09.11.1998
(iii) Distribution of the excess lands vested in the State Govt. to people belonging to weaker sections of the society such as persons belonging to schedule caste and tribes, and landless agricultural labourers etc. [ Purandhar Lagama Ingale and Others vs. Land Tribunal, Raibag and Others, (1978) 2 KarLJ 339 ]"
4. Pro Lab and Others V/s. State of Karnataka, (2006) 144 STC 33 [HC] [DB]] 6. Mysore Cements Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Assessement-V] City Division-II, Bangalore, (1994) 93 STC 464 Kar.] 5. State of Karnataka V/s. Pro Lab and Others,2015 81 KarLJ 377 [SC]
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied upon the following decisions elaborating on the first submission that the restriction under Section 27 of the Indian Contracts Act cannot be applied in the present case reiterating that the plaintiffs' applications are not to restrict the defendant Nos.1 to 3 from seeking employment elsewhere or with any person of their choice, but to protect the plaintiffs' Confidential Information/Proprietary Rights/Intellectual Property: (a) V V Sivaram and others vs. This Court, after referring to the decision of the Delhi High Court in John Richard Brady vs.....
8. Lastly, the learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of T.Bhaskar vs. In case of T.Bhaskar, there was a delay of about 3½ years between the second show cause notice and the order of punishment, while in the instant case, delay is of about 5 ½ years. Reliance is placed on this decision to canvas the contention that the respondent authorities are required to react within a reasonable time after a reply is caused by a delinquent officer to the second show cause notice. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
