Karnataka Court June 1977 Judgments
Ghouse Saheb Vs. Sharifa Bi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant181; ILR1977KAR1178; 1977(2)KarLJ467
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil judge, Bellary made in Land Acquisition Case No. 86 of 1972 on a reference made under S. 31(2) of the said Act.2. The appellant has paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 10 under Art. 3 (iii) (1) (a) of Schedule JI of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (shortly called 'the Court-Fees Act'). The office has refused to register the appeal on the ground that the court-fee paid was insufficient and the appellant ought to have paid court-fee under Section 49 read with Art I of Sch. I of the Court-Fees Act. The appellant on the other hand, contended that the matter involved in the appeal being limited only to the apportionment of the compensation awarded, S. 48 has no application.3. The decision on these contentions turns on the scope of Ss. 48 and 49 of the Court-Fees Act and the scheme provided there under. It will be, therefore, convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Yaragatti Vs. Vasant Siddoji Jadhav and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant196; ILR1977KAR1262; 1977(2)KarLJ243
ORDER1. This is a petition for review of the Order of this Court dated 4-8-1976 in C.R.P. No. 2611 of 1973 where by H.R.C. No. 45 of 1970 is allowed and the petitioner tenant is directed to vacates the premises.2. It was the case of the landlords respondents before the learned Munsiff that they required the premises for their bona fide and reasonable occupation and as such, under S. 21(1) proviso (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, the tenant was to be asked to deliver possession of the schedule premises. On that plea essentially, the case of eviction was contested before the learned Munsiff. His finding was that the reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlords was fulfilled. As such, he ordered for eviction of the tenant.3. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Munsiff, the tenant came in appeal before the learned District Judge, and as evident from the appellate order, a specific plea was raised at that stage, that the question of comparative hardship ...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Kichappa Setty Vs. V. Somanna Naika and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant185; ILR1977KAR1323; 1977(2)KarLJ157
ORDER1. This writ petition preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Somwarpet Taluk, Coorg, in Case No. LRM VI C/10/74-75 dated 30-10-1975, allowing the application of the first respondent, Somanna Naika in part and granting occupancy right in respect of 3 acres out of 6 acres 52 cents in Survey No. 10/4 and 48 cents out of 1 acre 48 cents in Survey No. 10/11 of Rasulpura village of Somwarpet Taluk in the District of Coorg under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. Survey No. 10/4, according to the Revenue records measures 6.52 acres and Survey No. 10/11 measures 1.48 acres. The first respondent alleging that he is a tenant personally cultivating the said lands, filed an application dated 27-11-1974 in form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal for registering him as the occupant. The applicant stated, inter alia, that his land-holder is one Venkatasubba Setty, the elder brother of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Gupta Vs. Basheer Ahamed and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant193; ILR1977KAR1359; 1977(2)KarLJ258
ORDER1. This review petition arises out of a judgment of this Court dated 31-3-1977 in C. R. P. No. 1086/1974, allowing the petition of the landlord under S. 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka House Rent Control Act, 1961 in H. R. C. No. 544/1966 and thereby asking the petitioner-tenant to vacate the schedule premises.2. As evident, the petition for eviction was filed on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises by the landlord. It was contested on a variety of grounds and the learned Munsif in the first instance allowed the petition. Thereafter, the tenant came in appeal before the learned District judge. This too was dismissed A revision was filed before the High Court which was C. R. P. No. 633/1970 and a learned Judge of this Court on 19-7-1971 confirmed the finding of the District Judge on the ground of bona fide and reasonable requirement of the premises by the landlord. Having confirmed that finding, however, the learned judge found that the landlord could evict ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankaramma and anr. Vs. Madappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant188; ILR1977KAR1386; 1977(2)KarLJ239
partition, and not to be restricted by assuming partition. Therefore, the plaintiffs' interest in the family properties became absolute upon the coming into force of S. 14(1) of the Act and the sole surviving coparcener had no right to alienate it. The absolute property vested in a female member cannot be disposed of by the Kartha of the family.12. In this context, it may be useful to refer to the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Govindram. Mihamal v. Chetumal Villardas : AIR1970Bom251 . While dealing with the scope of the proviso to S. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, Deshmukh, J., at page 261 said:'When an outsider to a joint family gets vested interest in a part of the property, the fact that the share is yet to be worked out and a particular piece of property or share in every piece of property is to be handed over to him or her in lieu of the share, does not seem to be of any consequence. The property of the joint family is at that stage partly vested in members who are alread...
Tag this Judgment!Purna Investments Ltd. Vs. Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1977
Reported in: [1978]48CompCas264(Kar); ILR1977KAR1365; 1977(2)KarLJ266
Venkatachalaiah, J. 1. Applicants are the petitioners in Company Petition No. 20 of 1977 and by this application seek certain interlocutory orders.2. Company Petition No. 20 of 1977 has been instituted by the applicants under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act alleging that the affairs of the company, Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd. are conducted in a manner so prejudicial to the interests of the company and its members as to call for and justify the interference of the company court and the exercise of the powers of the court under sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act.3. The grievances ventilated in the petition stem from disputes amongst brother, the eldest, Mohanlal Mittal, and his group being on the one side and his younger brothers, Indrasen Mittal, and others on the other. The main allegations in the said petition brought under section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act are that the board of directors of the company purportedly passed a resolution on 31st March, ...
Tag this Judgment!D.P. Chirania and Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR12(KAR); [1978]112ITR12(Karn); 1977(2)KarLJ247
Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. This reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, at the instance of the assessee under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment year 1966-67, the relevant previous year being the year ending March 31,1966. 2. The assessee is a firm dealing in iron ore. In the return filed for the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee has shown its total income as Rs. 65,613. This figure was based on the profit and losss account of the firm. Later, it filed a revised return showing a total income of Rs. 20,436 only. This reduction of income of from Rs. 65,613 to Rs. 20,436 was primarily due to the fact that in the revised return the assessee had claimed as revenue expenditure a sum of Rs. 55,146 being the cost of roads laid by the assessee for transportation of ore, notwithstanding of ore, notwithstanding the fact that in its profit and loss statement, the said sum had been shown under the head 'Capital Asset' in the...
Tag this Judgment!Bheemappa Basappa Athani Vs. the Land Tribunal, Jamakhandi, Taluka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Kant131; ILR1977KAR954; 1977(2)KarLJ150
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 226(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution is directed against an order made by the Land Tribunal, Jamkhandi, in case No. KLRSR 2120 dated 29-10-1975. The petitioner had applied for registration of occupancy rights in regard to S. No. 65/8 of Banahatti village in accordance with the Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed there under. The Tribunal after purporting to hold an enquiry rejected his claim. Hence this petition.2. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended principally that the procedure followed by the Tribunal in the matter of recording the statements of parties did not conform to the provisions of R. 17 of the Land Reforms Rules read with S. 34 of the Land Revenue Act, and therefore the proceedings were vitiated. It seems to me that this contention is well founded and must be accepted as correct.3. It is seen from the records made available that the statement of the petitioner has been recorded on a cyclostyled sheet with an interpolation that '...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›