Karnataka Court February 1972 Judgments
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, H.D.P. Ghataprabha Vs. Aparai Kr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant22; AIR1973Mys22
H.B. Datar, J.1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer. Hidkal Dam Project. Ghatsprabha is the appellant in these appeals, filed under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. All the three cases were clubbed together before the trial Court and a common judgment was given by the I Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum. The learned District Judge has also disposed of all the three appeals by a common judgment and that is why all these three appeals have been heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Lands of the Claimants were acquired for the purpose of construction of Hidkal Dam and for working space in respect of the Dam at Hidkal. The notification was published on the 18th of October 1962 and the claimants being not satisfied with regard to the award of compensation, requested that thematter should be referred to the Court of the Civil Judge. On the reference being made, the Learned Civil Judge enhanced the compensation in all these cases. The correctness of the decisions...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. K. Shamanna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant321; AIR1972Mys321; (1972)2MysLJ20
Venkataramiah, J.1. The above appeals are filed against the orders passedon I. As. 10 and 11 in Execution No. 7/ 1966 on the file of the Civil Judge. Bangalore City, setting aside the sale of a house belonging to judgment debtor No. 2. The sale was held on 22-11-1966.2. In the said execution proceedings the decree-holder sought to execute a money decree passed in O. S. 79/62 on the file of the District Judge. Bangalore. Under the decree the judgment-debtors, K. Shamanna and Lakshmamma, were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount due under the decree. It may be mentioned here that the said decree was consent decree. Under the decree the defendants were permitted to pay the decretal amount in four equal instalments with a default clause stating that in the event of any two instalments being in default, the entire amount would become due. The judgment debtors did not pay the decretal amount in accordance with the decree. The decree-holder therefore sued out execution to realise th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Canara Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: [1973]43CompCas461(Kar)
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This is a petition filed under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, by the Canara Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), praying for the sanction of this court to a special resolution passed by the company providing for amalgamation of the company with M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The company had made earlier an application under section 391 of the Companies Act requesting the court to issue directions for the purpose of holding a meeting of the members of the company to consider and approve the scheme providing for amalgamation. That on October, 1, 1971 the said application was granted a meeting of the members of the company was accordingly held on November 15, 1971, and the report of the chairman has been duly filed into court. Thereafter the above petition was filed on January 3, 1972. The above matter was duly published in three newspapers, namely, The Deccan Hearld, The Indian Express and The Nav Bharath. Sir M. Papanna, the Ce...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Canara Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant95; AIR1973Mys95
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This is a petition filed under Sections 392 and 394 of the Companies Act 1956, by Canara Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) praying for the sanction of this Court to a special resolution passed by the Company providing for amalgamation of the Company with M/s. Larsen Toubro Limited. The company had made earlier an application under Section 391 of the Companies Act requesting the Court to issue directions for the purpose of holding a meeting of the members of the Company to consider and approve the scheme providing for amalgamation. That on 1-10-1971 the said application was granted, a meeting of the members of the company was accordingly held on 15-11-1971 and the report of the Chairman has been duly filed into Court. Thereafter the above petition was filed on 3-1-1972. The above matter was duly published in three news papers namely, Deccan Herald. Indian Express and Nav Bharath. Sri M. Papanna, the Central Government Pleader, took notic...
Tag this Judgment!B.T. Sannabasave Gowda and anr. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant351; AIR1972Mys351
Narayana Pai, C.J.1. The petitioners in these cases question or impugn the appointments made by the Deputy Commissioner of the respondents as Panchayat Secretaries which have the result of displacing the petitioners from their position as Panchayat Secretaries.2. The only ground on which the appointment made by the Deputy Commissioner is assailed is. that the appointment could have been competently made only by the Divisional Commissioner under Section 80 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, and not by the Deputy Commissioner of the District.3. But under Section 197 (2) of the Mysore Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act the Government may by a notification delegate to the Deputy Commissioner any of the powers conferred by the Act on the Commissioner. By an order No. DPC 24 VET 70 dated 1st June 1970. published in the Mysore Gazette dated the 25th June 1970, the Government have authorised the Deputy Commissioners to appoint Village Accountants as Secretaries of...
Tag this Judgment!Aithappa Ghannan Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ360
ORDERD. Noronha, J.1. The Revision Petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 1385/1971 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Mangalore. He was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 13(e) read with Section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act. On his admission of guilt he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks more. He went up in appeal to the Sessions Court of South Kanara Division, Mangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 68/71. The Appeal was dismissed. As against that order, the accused petitioner has come up here.2. The substance of the accusation stated to the accused on 15.8.1971, under Section 242. Cr.P.C. reads as below:That you on 17.12.1970 at about 2 P.M. at Bengare in Thota village, Mangalore Taluk, were found in possession of a tyre tube containing about 30 bottles of I.D. arrack without permit and thereby you have committed an of...
Tag this Judgment!Kallappa Sidappa Suryawanshi Vs. Akkavva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant276; AIR1972Mys276; (1972)1MysLJ588
H.B. Datar, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the plaintiff. He filed O. S. 163/62 in the court of the Civil Julge, Junior Division, Hukkeri, on 21st December. 1962, claiming the following reliefs:1. Declaration that the marriage solemnised between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void and as such the defendant is not the wife of the plaintiff; and 2. Declaration that the issue which would be bom to the defendant is not a legitimate issue of the plaintiff. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the points arising in this appeal, it is necessary to set out the geneological tree which has been mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is as follows:-- RAGHU@RAYAPPA|________________________________________________________________________________________________| | | | |Satappa Bharappaa Annappa Tavanappa- Padmavathi(Further geneology Ghantappa | Sonawwa Husband Satappais not given as be- (Gone in adoption Shankar (Dead) Tavanappacause it is not con- tion in another | ...
Tag this Judgment!Sangappa Sanganbasappa Vs. Amjabi Anand Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant280; AIR1972Mys280
H.B. Datar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in the present second appeal. His suit was partly decreed by the trial judge. But in appeal before the appellate court, the appellate judge has allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. This is now his second appeal brought up before this court.2. The case of the plaintiff is that there has been an open plot of land measuring 22 yds x 19 yds. at Nagur village. Gulbarga, Taluka. It is his case that it is in his possession for more than 40 years and after obtaining permission for construction on the plot in the year 1349 F. from Tahsildar certain construction was put up by the plaintiff. It was further the case of the plaintiff that later his brother's son Shivalingappa has constructed a house on the northern side of the plot with permission of the plaintiff. But defendant 1 started proceeding with the 2nd defendant to auction the plot. In spite of the objection by the plaintiff, the plot was ultimately put up for auction and d...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Land Acquisition Officer Railways, Mangalore Vs. Narayana ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant25; AIR1973Mys25
Venkataswami, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 54 of the LandAcquisition Act, and directed against an order made by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O. P. No. 814 of 1966, dated 21-1-1969.2. The lands concerned in this appeal were acquired for the purposes of laving a railway line, by a notification dated 16-4-1964 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The lands comprised under this acquisition are as follows: (1) 1 acre and 31 cents classified as wet.1; (2) 9 cents classified as wet 3; (3) one acre and 19 cents of garden; and one cent of dry land. The respondent had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre for dry land, Rupees 10,000/- per acre in regard to both classes of wet land, Rs. 24,000/- per acre for coconut garden and Rs. 60,000/- per acre towards areca garden, which was a portion of wet-1 land. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded in regard to these lands at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-towards ...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer, Citb, Bangalore Vs. J.B. Kempanna Se ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant121; AIR1973Mys121
Venkataswami, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common Order made by the Principal District Judge, Bangalore on 22-12-1966 in L. A. Mis. Cases Nos. 271, 272 and 273 of 1961 and 94 of 1962. Hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment.2. It is relevant to mention that under the common Order made by the learned District Judge, he has also dealt with L. A. Mis. Case No. 149 of 1962, the relevant M. F. A. in regard to that being M. F. A. No. 10 of 1968. Since one of the respondents is reported to be dead, in the said appeal, it has been detached from the group of appeals for the purpose of disposal separately, after the legal representatives, ifany, of the deceased respondent are brought on record.3. M. F. A. Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 232 of 1968 have been preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, M. F. A. No. 261 of 1967 is an appeal for enhancement of compensation preferred by the claimant in L. A. Mis. Case No. 273/61.4. We may at this stage...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »