Karnataka Court March 1976 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Basappa Ningappa Arabi Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot Sub-di ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Kant224; ILR1976KAR974; 1976(1)KarLJ415
ORDER1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against a no confidence motion passed against the petitioner, as a result of which he has been removed from the office of Chairman of Amingad Town Panchayat. His appeal to the Assistant Commissioner against such removal had also been rejected.2. The total number of members constituting Amingad Town Panchayat was 17. But at the relevant point of time, one of them had died. On a requisition by six of the members of the Panchayat, in accordance with Section 32 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats, and Local Boards Act, 1959, a meeting was convened by the Vice-Chairman on 11-9-1975. Out of the members Present, eleven members voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the Chairman (petitioner). There was also a twelfth member who had consented to such no confidence motion although he was not actually present at the meeting. It was thus the Petitioner was removed from the office of Chairman. His appeal to the ...
P.K. Thipperudrappa Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: ILR1976KAR972; 1976(1)KarLJ417
ORDER1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvements and Clearance) Act, 1973 (Slum Act) whereby certain land belonging to him had been notified as a slum area.2. On behalf of the petitioner, Minajagi, learned counsel, submitted that before promulgation of the said notification, which affected his civil rights to property, it was the duty of the authority concerned to have afforded him an opportunity to show cause against such declaration. In support of this submission, he relied on certain enunciations of the Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of Mysore v. J. V. Bhat, : [1975]2SCR407 , which was a case arising under the Mysore Slum Areas (Improvements and Clearance) Act, 1958, wherein also a similar notification had been issued under Section 3 thereof, the provisions of which are in pari materia with the provisions of the Act concerned herewith. It seems to me ...
Mallayya Murigeyya Naduvinamath Vs. Puttappa Shivappa Mosali
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Kant192; ILR1976KAR836; 1976(1)KarLJ369
Venkataramiah, J.1. On a reference made by Venkataswami, J., the above appeal has come up for decision before this Division Bench.2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit, 0. S. No. 68 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff, Savanur. The respondent instituted the said suit for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession of the suit land on the ground that the land in question was an agricultural land and that he was in possession of the same as tenant under the appellant. The appellant denied that the respondent was his tenant and contended that he himself was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit land. On the basis of the pleadings, the Munsiff framed several issues. One of them was 'Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession of the suit land on the date of the suit?' At the conclusion of the trial the Munsiff passed a decree dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, the respondent filed an appeal before the Civil Judg...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore Vs. S.V. Ratnaswamy and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR154(KAR); [1977]106ITR154(Karn)
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore, relating to the assessment year 1970-71, corresponding to the previous year ending on June 30, 1969. 2. The question of law referred to this court for opinion is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assesses firm was entitled to the benefit of continuance of registration under section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 3. The assessee is a firm of partners carrying on business at Chikmagalur in petrol and petroleum products, fertilisers, etc., under the name and style of 'M/s. S. V. Ratnaswamy & Sons'. The said firm has been constituted by a deed of partnership dated January 1, 1966. 4. During the relevant accounting year, there were size partners. After the en...
S. Sanjiva Shetty Vs. Anantha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: ILR1976KAR1120; 1976(1)KarLJ430
Venkataswami, J.1. These are two appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act and can he disposed of together by a common judgment. They are directed against a common order made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal of South Kanara at Mangalore (Tribunal), in Misc. Cases (MVC) Nos. 75, 82, 183 and 84 of 1970. They relate to the awards made in Misc. Cases (MVC) Nos. 75 and 82 of 1970 respectively. The appellant is common and he is held liable to pay the damages awarded in the said two claim cases.2. The material facts briefly are as follows: - On 18-4-1970 at about 6-30 P.M., a tourist taxi No. MYX 7558 (hereinafter referred to as the Udipi Taxi) belonging to the appellant here in, was proceeding from Udipi to Mangalore. When it reached the junction of the main road and the road branching off to Pavanji, it collided with a car bearing No. MYX-1620 (hereinafter referred to as the Mangalore car) which was proceeding from Mangalore to Udipi, and was about to take a turn to Pavanj...
Bhairavasingh Malojirao Ghorpade and anr. Vs. Shankar Rao Bindu Rao Pa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Kant164; ILR1976KAR1279; 1976(1)KarLJ418
Sadanandaswamy, J.1. This revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Bhimiah, J. The revision petition is presented against the order dated 6-8-1973 passed on I. A. VI by the Civil judge, Bagalkot, in 0. S. 38/70. The petitioners are defendants 1 and 3 in the suit. I. A. Vl is an application filed by defendant-1 on 6-7-1971 under Section 87-B read with Sections 85 and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requesting the Court to dismiss the plaintiff's suit in limine as being not maintainable. The application was dismissed by the Civil judge.2. The first respondent brought the suit on 5-12-1970 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for possession of the suit immoveable properties. Defendant-1 was the former Ruler of Mudhol State. Defendant-2 (Respondent-2) is his mother, Defendant-3 is the General Power of Attorney-holder from defendants 1and 2. Respondents 3 to 12 (defendants 4 to 13) are the relatives of defendants 1 and 2 in whose favour certain transfers in ...
Basanagouda Takanagouda Patil and ors. Vs. State of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Kant197; ILR1976KAR964; 1976(1)KarLJ385
B. Venkataswami, J.1. This batch of four petitions have been brought up before us on a reference by a learned single Judge. They can be disposed of by a common order as the questions of fact and law raised are common.2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as follows: For the Purpose of extension of a village by name Nirenarti, certain lands were Proposed for acquisition by a notification dated 31-1-1969 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. After following the procedure prescribed by the Act, a further notification under Section 6 was also issued. Both these notifications were duly gazetted. Thereafter, an award had also been passed even before the petitioners approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.3. As a result of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, fragments of lands ranging in extent between 1 and 8 guntas had been created, as the said extents were left out of acquisition. It is further apparent from the annexures to the petition that this ac...
Rudrayya Vs. Gangawwa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: ILR1976KAR1151; 1976(1)KarLJ409
Sadanandaswamy, J.1. This revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench since the learned Single Judge who heard it in the first instance was of the opinion that it involves questions of considerable public importance.2. The petitioner took on lease the land R. S. No. 104, measuring 5 acres and 3 guntas, situate in Thimmasagara village which is now part of Hubli City, on 19-1-1949, under a registered lease deed on an annual rent of Rs. 1,505, the period of lease being 41 years, from the owners respondents 1 and 2. Respondent 3 is alleged to be the sub-lessee under the petitioner. The respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 21, clause (1), sub-clauses (b), (c) and (f) of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The present petitioner contended, among other things that the application is not maintainable for the reason that the suit property was an agricultural land and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application....
Raj Mohammad Vs. Saeeda Amina Begum
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-22-1976
Reported in: ILR1976KAR1008; 1976(1)KarLJ427
1. This second appeal arises out of the suit instituted in the year 1969 on the file of the Munsiff, Raichur, by the plaintiff for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the defendant.2. The parties to the suit are muslims. The plaintiff, who is the husband, is a resident of Raichur. He took the defendant in marriage at Hyderabad on the 17th of May, 1963. Thereafter the defendant came over to Raichur and lived with the plaintiff. By December 1966 two children were born to them. In December 1966 the defendant left for Hyderabad. The case of the plaintiff was that she had gone away to Hyderabad since he was not willing to leave his parents and shift himself to Hyderabad. The defendant's case was that some time after the marriage, the plaintiff began to make demands on her father to provide him with a motor cycle, a gold ring etc., and as the said demands were not complied with, he began to ill-treat her. On coming to know of it, 'her father came to Raichur and took her away ...
K.P. Nanjunath and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Kant158
Chandrashekhar, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Venkataramiah, J., in Writ Petition No. 5812 of 1974. The appellants and the defendants herein were the petitioners and the respondents respectively in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, the appellants will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioners.2. The facts of the case are briefly these: The land bearing Survey No.23 of Baggasagodu village in Chickmagalur District, is a Gomal land. The first petitioner had applied in about the year 1960 for grant of 10 acres of land in this Survey number. The villagers opposed the grant of land to him. The Revenue authorities rejected his application for grant of land about 10 years later, respondent 4 made an application for grant of 20 acres of land in this survey number for coffee cultivation in the Mahzar prepared by the Revenue official some villagers including two of the appellants stated that they had no objection to grant of the land applied for by respondent 4 for co...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »