Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1980Kant95
Venkatachaliah, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law arising under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for the opinion of the Full Bench.'Whether a property which was an agricultural land at the time of letting and had ceased to be agricultural land an the date of the petition for eviction is a 'Premises' within the meaning of Section 3 (n) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, and would attract provisions of Sections of Section 21 of the Act?''2. The matter arises out of Proceedings for eviction under proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act') instituted by the petitioner against respondents in H. R. C. No. 287 of 1968 on the file of the Mummify, Hubble, respecting certain lands which, at the time of letting, were agricultural lands; but, which as on the date of institution of the Proceedings came within the limits of Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation and used by the lesse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1980CriLJ751
M. Nagappa, J.1. The petitioners, Who were the accused before the lower court, have challenged in this revision petition the legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated 16-6-1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shorapur, in C. C. No. 464 of 1978, registering a case against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 323 of the I.P.C. and issuing summons to them.2. Few facts of the case are that the complainant, who is the second respondent herein, filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Shorapur, stating the the accused persons are related to each other and they are residing at Kabadgera in Shorapur town. On 14-6-1978 at about 11 a. m., it is alleged by the complainant, that he was repairing the 'katta' in front of his house bearing No. 1-13-43 situate at Kabadgera in Shorapur town and at that time the accused persons came there and objected for the repairs of the 'katta', for which the complainant said that if they had got any objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1980Kant75
Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. This revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Rama Jois, J., as he doubted the correctness of the 'view taken by Malimath, J., in Ex. S. A. No. 43 of 1977 regarding the Jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge to execute a decree for eviction transferred to that Court by the Court of the Munsiff which had passed that decree.2. The facts of the case are briefly these: The petitioners herein had filed an application under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of respondent-1 herein, the Cooperative Tourist and Transport Society Ltd., in H. R. C. No. 723 of 1971 on the file of the Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore who granted a decree for eviction. Later, the petitioners filed an execution application, Ex. Case No. 623 of 1975, in the same Court. During the pendency of the execution proceeding'. the Karnataka Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Karnataka Act No. 31 of 1975) (here...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1979Kant182; ILR1979KAR1817; 1979(1)KarLJ333
1. This appeal is by the claimant and is directed against the order dated 31-8-1978, passed by the Civil Judge, U. K., Karwar, in Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 1978 on his file, dismissing the application filed by the appellant to release the truck bearing registration No. MEL 4330 from attachment. 2. The Syndicate Bank, Ankola, obtained a decree as per Exhibit D-2 in O. S. No. 6 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, against the three defendants named therein and under the decree, it was contemplated that as far as possible the plaintiff should make attempts to recover the loan by proceeding against the truck of defendant 1B, viz., MEL 4330 and the defendant 2 should help the plaintiff in such recovery. If, however, that was not possible or the amount remained unsatisfied, the plaintiff was free to proceed against the suit truck of defendant 2 as also the other properties of the defendants. Under the decree, the truck belonging to defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1979Kant181
ORDER1. This is a writ petition filed by one Simon F. Pinto against the order dated 8-1-1979 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). That order was passed in Appeal No. 26 of 1977 before the Board. The petitioner preferred the said appeal against the order dated 11th Oct., 1976 (signed on 16th Oct., 1976) by the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Madras, holding the appellant guilty of contravention of the provisions of S. 4(1) and S. 4(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (sic) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Board took the view that the appeal was not maintainable inasmuch as the same was filed beyond the period prescribed under S. 52 of the Act and dismissed the same.2. Sri B. M. Baliga, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the Board was not correct in rejecting the appeal which was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. He has further contended that the Board oug...
Tag this Judgment!