Karnataka Court July 1976 Judgments
V.K. Narasimhan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant8; ILR1976KAR1357; 1976(2)KarLJ103
Tewatia, J.1. The Division Bench while allowing the Writ Appeal No. 928/ 74, set aside the order of the learned single Judge who had dismissed the Writ Petition No. 5798 of 1974, in limine, and remanded the case to the learned single Judge for a decision on merits.2.The petitioner has filed a memo in the aforesaid Writ Appeal claiming refund of court-fee affixed on the memorandum of appeal.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to base his claim for refund on the provisions of Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Court Fees Act), which reads: -'64. Refund in cases of remand - (1) Where a plaint or memorandum of appeal which has been rejected by the lower court is ordered to be received, or where a suit is remanded in appeal for a fresh decision by the lower court, the court making the order or remanding the appeal's hall, where the whole decree is reversed and the suit is remanded, and may in other cases dire...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Umer Saheb Vs. B.H. Santhkumaraiah and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant85; ILR1976KAR1405
ORDER1. The petitioner-tenant has challenged the order of the Munsiff, Mandya made under Section 29 (4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as the 'Act') and the order of the District Judge, Mandya, confirming the said order of eviction.2. The first respondent filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a), (h) and (j) of the Act. During the pendency of the said application, the landlord applied for action being taken under Section 29 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has committed default in the payment of rent. The landlord has also instituted a suit in the year 1974 for recovery of arrears of rent and obtained a decree. He sued out execution of the said decree. The decree was not satisfied. When the landlord filed an application before the learned Munsiff for taking action under Section 29 (4) of the Act, an order was made directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,470/- on or before 18-3-1976. The petitioner did not pay the...
Tag this Judgment!Sourindra Lal Das and anr. Vs. Latika Das
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-19-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ405
Sudhamay Basu, J.1. This application relates to a proceeding in case No. C/131 of 1974 in the Court of. the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta.2. Mr. Moitra the learned Advocate appearing in support of the motion challenged at first the order dated January 19, 1974 on the ground or non compliance of the provision of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Obviously he did so on the basis of the judgment in the case of Bramhananda Goel reported in 1974 Cri LJ 1079 (Cal). Since then the decision has been set aside by the Special Bench in the case of Tara Dutta v. State, reported in 79 Cal WN 996 : AIR 1975 SC 450, Mr. Moitra further tried to argue that the recording of the statement was also not in order as he thought that the substance of the examination has not been reduced to writing in terms of the said section. We are unable to accept the validity of his submission. In this connection we may refer to the case of Queen Empress v. Murphy, reported in (1887) I...
Tag this Judgment!Dayanand R. Kalle Vs. N.R. Pura Tq. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ971
D.S. Tewatia J1. The actions of accused No. 1 in ordering Police protection and of accused No. 2 in providing one in pursuance of the direction of accused No. 1, are in clear disobedience of the judgment of this Court D/- 25-7-1975 in W.P. No, 3444 of 1975 (Kant) and thus amount to a clear contempt of this Court.2. However, since accused No. 1 is in the evening of his career and accused No. 2 is almost at the beginning of his career, and as accused No. 1 stated that he passed the order under some misunderstandings of the aforesaid judgment of this Court and both of them have tendered unconditional apologies, we order that the proceedings be dropped.3. But, since the uncalled for action of the accused has brought the complainant to this Court, we direct the accused to pay the costs which we fix at Rs. 100/-....
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeevamma Vs. Doddavallabi Village Panchayat Narasapura Hobli and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant30; 1976(2)KarLJ160
ORDER1. A huge hillock of rock used for quarrying. building stones and classified as 'minor mineral' is situated', in Survey No. 50 of Dinne Hosahalli village in Kolar Taluk. Originally it vested in the local Village Panchayat. The Panchayat then used to get a good income by way of royalty on granting the quarry lease. On 29th November, 1972, the Government issued a Notification resuming the quarry from the Panchayat, and thereafter invited applications for grant of quarry lease. The petitioner and the Village Panchayat along with some others, submitted their applications. The application of the petitioner was the earliest in time. Rule 7 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called 'The Rules') gave him some priority. It provides:'7. Priority. - (1) if more than one application for a quarrying lease over the same area are received, preference shall be given to the applications in the order of date of receipt unless the Government for any special reason dec...
Tag this Judgment!Pullamma and ors. Vs. the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant9; ILR1976KAR1267
Tewatia, J.1. These two sets of cases, viz., M. F. As, 767/74, 79, 131, 188 and 243 of 1975 and C. R. Ps. 1442/74 and 475 and 984 of 1975 though arise in different sets of circumstances, but involve a common question of law and hence would admit of determination by a common judgment.2. The short question that falls for determination in these cases is, as to whether the provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to reference proceedings before the Civil Court of original jurisdiction launched under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').3. Before proceeding with the consideration of the legal point aforesaid, it would be desirable, at this stage, to take note of a few relevant facts which can be stated thus:- After references had been made under Section 18 of the Act by the Collector and the Court was seized of the matter, at one stage or the other of the said proceedings, the claimants ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of N.G.E.F. Ltd., Bangalore Vs. their Workmen
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1976
Reported in: (1976)IILLJ324Kant
Acts/Rules/Orders: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10A; Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 - Section 23; Payment of Bonus Ordinance, 1975AWARD1. During the pendency of an industrial dispute between the parties before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bangalore, relating to payment of bonus of the year 1974-75, an agreement between the concerned parties to refer the said industrial dispute for arbitration under S. 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was forwarded to the Government of Karnataka. The Government issued a notification under S. 10A(3A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The specific matter in dispute between the parties was set out in the notification. That is the matter of reference. It is as follows : (1) Are the workers of the N.G.E.F. represented by the N.G.E.F. Employees Association justified in demanding 20 per cent bonus as claimed by them under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, read with the Payment of Bonus Ordinance, 1975 as against the bonus of 9.4 per cent declare...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaputragouda Chandregouda Patil Vs. S.G. Hiremath and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant87; 1976(2)KarLJ62
ORDER1. The validity of an award made by the Arbitrator and affirmed by the Karnataka Co-operative Appellate Tribunal, is called into question in this petition under Article 227.2. The petitioner was a Secretary of the Shiggaon Taluka Co-operative Agricultural Association, which is a society, registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The Society raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act claiming Rupees 3,358-51 from the petitioner stating that be was liable to pay as per the accounts maintained by the Society. Before the Arbitrator, on behalf of the Society, its President and the Auditor were examined as P. Ws.1 and 2. The petitioner did not examine himself. Instead, he filed a statement describing the same as a statement made on oath. The Arbitrator on his own appraisal of the evidence, held that there was a shortage in cash balance and deficiency in stock worth Rs. 3,358-51, which the petitioner was liable to make good. He accordingly made an award, against ...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Gajanan Shankararao Kulkarni and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant14; ILR1976KAR1255; 1976(2)KarLJ37
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 10 of 1967 an the file of the Civil Judge at Hubli is directed against that part of the judgment and decree dated 25-2-1972 by which the Court below, while granting a decree against the principal debtor, the first defendant in the suit for the sum of Rs.32,757/- negatived the claim against the sureties, defendant3 2 and 3 who are respondents I and 2 respectively in this appeal.2. Appellant claiming to be the successor-in-interest of Bank of Karnataka Ltd., Hubli, instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 32,757/- against the first defendant as the principal debtor in enforcement of the pronote for Rs. 25.000/-, Exhibit P-1, and the hypothecation bond, Exhibit P-2, relating to the Truck MYG 3031 and against defendants 2 and 3, on the basis of the surety bond, Exhibit P-3; the said transactions under Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-3 having been entered into by the defendants with t...
Tag this Judgment!Thirnmakku and ors. Vs. Bandlu Rangappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant115; 1977(1)KarLJ206
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1972 made in 0 S. No. 27 of 1966 on the file of the Civil Judge, Chitradurga, dismissing the suit for partition instituted by the first-plaintiff and plaintiffs 2 to 7 claiming to be the wife and children respectively of one Bandlu Hanumanthappa of Jagalur in the district of Chitradurga who died in April 1964 against the second defendant and defendants 3 to 7 who are admittedly the second wife and the children respectively of the said Bandlu Hanumanthappa. The Court-below upheld the contention of the defendants that inter alia the first plaintiff, though originally married to the said deceased Hanumanthappa subsequently became divorced in accordance with and as permitted by the custom of caste and that plaintiffs 2 to 7 were not the children of or begotten by the said Hanumanthappa, but were born to one B. T. Reddy also known as B. Thippa reddy in whose company the fir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›