Karnataka Court August 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.
M.S. Narayanagouda Vs. Girijamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant58; 1976(2)KarLJ254
G.K. Govinda Rhat, C.J.1. This appeal preferred by a land owner in Muddier Taluk, Chickmagalur District, arises out of an application of the 1st respondent-Girijamma, made under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), before the Land Tribunal, Mudigere Taluk, for registration of occupancy in respect of 3 acres of wet land out of 5 acres 31 guntas in S1. No. 76/P of Halemudigere village in Mudigere taluk of Chickmagalur District. The 1st respondent, Girijamma, filed an application before the Tribunal on 26-121974, alleging that she was personally cultivating 3 acres of wet land out of 5 acres 31 guntas in Survey N. 76/P of Halemudigere village and that under the provisions of the Act, she may be registered as an occupant.2. The appellant-land owner opposed the said application contending that the applicant was not the tenant as defined under the Act, and that she was not personally cultivating the land.3. On the basis of the said application, t...
H.N. Siddalingaiah and ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar and Secretary of the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant74; 1976(2)KarLJ278
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the Special Tahsildar and Secretary of the Land Tribunal, Tumkur taluk, on 19-1-1976, directing the police authorities to give full protection to respondents 4 and till their case is decided by the Land Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (herein after called the 'Act). Respondents 4 and 5 alleging that they are tenants of certain agricultural lands comprised in Sy. Nos. 167 and 168 of Mallasandra Amanikere village of Tumkur taluk, made an application before the Land Tribunal, Tumkur taluk, for registration of occupancy under Section 45 of the Act. Appellants 5 and 6 were the original owners of the said lands and they are said to have conveyed by sale the said lands to appellants 1 to 4. The said appellants denied that respondents 4 and 5 are the tenants of the lands in question. It was stated before us that the Tribunal had not even issued notice to the appellants under Section 48-A(2) of the Act, sta...
Sha Pannalal Premraj and Co. Cardamom Merchant by Proprietor Sha Premr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Kar)332
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. These appeals are directed against the order in W.P. No. 1514 of 1974 and connected matters made by Venkataramiah, J., dismissed the said writ petitions challenging the assessment orders made under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. 2. The appellants are carrying on the business of buying and selling cardamoms in Sakleshpur in the State of Karnataka. They are registered as 'Dealers' under the Act. Cardamoms being 'declared goods', under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax, 1956, hereinafter called the Central Act, the right of State Legislatures to levy sales tax on cardamoms is subject to the restrictions and limitations imposed by Section 15 of the Central Act. 3. The facts, so far as they are material, are not in dispute and they lie within a narrow compass. The appellants buy cardamoms from registered dealers and also from Commission Agents operating in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Yard at Sakleshpur. For the period from 1-4-19...
M/S. Sha Pannalal Premraj and Co. Cardamom Merchant by Proprietor Sha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-28-1976
Reported in: (1976)5CTR(Kar)0332A
Govinda Bhat, C.J. - These appeals are directed against the order in W.P. No. 1514 of 1974 and connected matters made by Venkataramiah, J., dismissed the said writ petitions challenging the assessment orders made under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act.2. The appellants are carrying on the business of buying and selling cardamoms in Sakleshpur in the State of Karnataka. They are registered as Dealers under the Act. Cardamoms being declared goods, under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax, 1956, hereinafter called the Central Act, the right of State Legislatures to levy sales tax on cardamoms is subject to the restrictions and limitations imposed by Section 15 of the Central Act.3. The facts, so far as they are material, are not in dispute and they lie within a narrow compass. The appellants buy cardamoms from registered dealers and also from Commission Agents operating in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Yard at Sakleshpur. For the period from 1-4-1972 to ...
S. Rama Murthy Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1976
Reported in: 1976(2)KarLJ230; (1977)IILLJ347Kant
ORDER1. These two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, raise a short, but an important question relating to the relative seniority of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 80. The matter arise in this way : (The petitioners were initially appointed as temporary Junior Engineers in the Karnataka Electricity Board (hereinafter called 'the Board'). By an industrial award dated 17th October, 1967, they were entitled to have their services absorbed into the permanent cadre. Accordingly, with effect from 26th May, 1968 they were absorbed as permanent candidates against the existing vacancies. On 7th November, 1967, respondents 2 to 80 were appointed as probationary junior engineers. In November, 1969, their services were regularised after the period of satisfactory completion of probation. The Board while preparing the gradation list dated, 17th September, 1969, ranked the petitioners below respondents 2 to 80. The same was repeated in the latest gradation list dated 5th April, 1976....
T.V. Govindaraja Iyengar Vs. B.R. Ramanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant77; ILR1976KAR1778; 1976(2)KarLJ252
ORDER1. This is a revision under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against the decision of the Civil Judge, Bangalore in a petition under S. 43 (i) and (ii) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act for restoration of Electricity, being an essential supply enjoyed by the tenant in the premises consisting of a room situated in O. T. C. Road, Chickpet area of this city. The petitioner is an Advocate, T. V. Govindaraja Iyengar. According to him, he is a tenant of B. R. Ramanna in that room, where he runs his office from the last 30 years. He has been paying Rs. 30/- per month as rent and was enjoying the essential supply of electricity in that room, Sometimes in 1974, the landlord wanted to make some construction and in that connection the electricity was cut off with a promise to be restored after the construction work was completed. Thereafter the landlord did not restore the electric connection for which notice was served by ...
Shrinivas Kenheri Kulkarni Vs. Subbappa Mehetru Nidagalkar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant78; ILR1976KAR1755; 1976(2)KarLJ202
Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal under Section 43(1) of the Code, of Civil Procedure is by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 24/73 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum. He is aggrieved by an order made therein directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction to try the suit.2. The material facts leading upto the appeal, briefly, are as follows:-The appellant filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction on the ground that the respondents herein had denied his title to the suit property an agricultural land separately numbered and assessed for the purpose of land revenue. He valued the suit for the purposes of court-fee on the basis of the provisions of Section 7(2)(b) of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (Court-fees Act, for short), at Rs. 251-69 P. and paid court-fee thereon. But, for the purpose of jurisdiction, the market value- of the land was stated as Rs. 54,000/-. In view of the latter valuation, the suit ...
Habibulla Shariff and anr. Vs. the University of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant80; ILR1976KAR1715
ORDER1. The petitioners are final M. B. B. S. Students of the Mysore University. They have moved this Court with a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ or direction against the University to declare their results of the examination in subject, Obstetrics and Gynaecology.2. The events leading up to the petitions are these: The academic term for the final M. B. B. S. Examination was between 1-1-1975 to 30-11-1975. As usual, the petitioners applied to take the examination on 11-10-1975, and the applications were forwarded to the University on 20-11-1975. Statutes 201 and 202 made under the Mysore University Act, 1956, provide that the applications of the candidates are to be scrutinised under the supervision of the Controller of Examinations and to assign the register number to each candidate. The register number so assigned is to be entered in the printed Admission Ticket to be delivered to the candidate. The Admission Ticket shall then be sent to the Chief Supe...
A. Thakurdas and anr Vs. A. Venilal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-19-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant60; 1976(2)KarLJ217
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, by which he disposed of four Interlocutory Applications Nos. 54, 55, 56 and 57 of 1975 arising from a suit for partition in which proceedings for passing of a final decree are pending. 0. S. No. 22/60 was filed by one Smt. Umia Ben, for partition of moveable and immoveable properties left by her deceased father Ambar,am Fakirbhai Vekharia. The deceased died on 4-12-1959 leaving six sons (defendants 1 to 6) and five daughters including the plaintiff. One of the daughters Umia Ben who was the former defendant No. 7 was subsequently transposed as plaintiff. It was stated that that she had sold her rights in the properties to the defendants (2, 4 to 6). The suit was obviously for partition of the properties and also for rendition of accounts. It appears, subsequently defendants 1 to 6 applied for being transposed as plaintiffs but their respective applications were rejected. The su...
Fakirappa and ors. Vs. Venkatesh and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant65; ILR1976KAR1750; 1976(2)KarLJ186
1. The legal representatives of defendant-1 and defendants 2 to 6 in L. C. Suit No. 44/1961 on the file of the Munsiff, Laxmeshwar, are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiffs who are respondents 1 and 2 in this second appeal instituted the said suit for a declaration that the alienation of the suit schedule property made by their father Parashuram in favour of defendant-1 Devendrappa was not binding on them and for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rds share in the suit property. Their case was that the suit land belonged to the joint family consisting of their father Parashuram and themselves that Parashuram alienated it in favour of defendant-1 under a sale deed dated 12-6-1942, although, the said transaction was not supported by legal necessity or family benefit and that therefore the alienation was not binding on them. They also pleaded that the consideration alleged to have been paid under the said sale deed was inadequate. Defendant-2 is the son of defen...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »