Karnataka Court February 1982 Judgments
Sree Rama Mandira Trust, Bangalore Vs. T. Manisharappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant6; ILR1982KAR837; 1982(1)KarLJ417
ORDER1. The revision is directed against an order dated 15-10-81 of the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in L.A.C.No.155 of 1981 pending on his file.2. L.A.C.No.155 of 1981 is a reference made to the Court below under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Karnataka Act 17 of 1961 (the 'Act').3. During the pendency of that reference, this petitioner filed an application before the Court to permit it to come on record and participate in the reference. The learned Civil Judge has rejected that application by his order impugned here.4. A few facts which are relevant may be stated in brief :Some vacant land (fully described in the award LAC 47/78-79) forming part of Site No.29 within the limits of Bangalore City Corporation has been acquired by the Asst. Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Sub-Dn., Bangalore, for a public purpose, namely, for formation and extension of a road - 7th Cross Road from Coconut Avenue Road to Pipeline Mai...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramalingappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Kant22
1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-12-1974 passed by the Civil Judge, Bellary, in Regular Appeal No. 102 of 1973, on hsi file allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdication to entertain the suit.2. The plaintiff instituted a suit for a declaration that the order of the Assistant Commissioner cancelling the grant of 31 sq. yrds as per Exhibit P. 1 was one without jurisdication and, as such, void in the eye of law.3. The suit was resisted by the Government mainly on the ground that the notice under S. 80 of the Civil P.C. was not legal and proper and that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for such a relief.4. The trail Court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings :- (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the Assistant Commissioner has no power to cancel the assignment once granted? (2) Whether the defendant proves that the Court has no jurisdiction to en...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanna Rai and anr. Vs. Jagannatha and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Kant270; 1982(2)KarLJ82
1. This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-1-1975 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore, in Regular Appeal No. 32 of 1974, on his file, allowing the appeal on reversing the judgment and decree dated 19-12-1973 passed b, the Principal Munsiff. Putlur, South Kanara, in Original Suit No. 163 of 1973, on his file: dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that in a family partition among the defendants and one Beeranna Rai, the father of the plaintiffs, under a registered partition deed dated 13-5-1966, Beeranna Rai was allotted and put in exclusive possession of the plaint 'A, schedule properties. Beeranna Rai died in the year 1969 and. after his death, his wife Seethu Hengsu, the mother of the plaintiffs, was in exclusive possession of the plaint 'A, schedule properties till her death in 1970, Thereafter, the mother of Seethu Hengsu i.e., the grand mother of the plaintiffs, as gua...
Tag this Judgment!B. Narayanappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1982
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1334; ILR1982KAR474; 1982(1)KarLJ369
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order dated 13th January, 1982, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chintamani, whereby he has rejected the application of bail made by the petitioners. 2. Sidlaghatta Police having registered a case in Crime No. 195/81 against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 353, 142, 153 and 324 IPC sent F.I.R. to the Court. The petitioners appeared before the Magistrate and made the application for bail as provided under Section 436 Cr.P.C. All the offences were bailable. But the Magistrate refused to entertain the application of bail and rejected it on the ground that the applicants were neither arrested by the police nor they had been summoned by the Court nor they appeared in response to any process of the Court and as such they could as well be released on bail in the police station and any grant of bail would amount to exercising power not vested in the Court. The petitioners have therefore approached this Court questioning...
Tag this Judgment!B.P. Automobiles and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-05-1982
Reported in: 1983(2)KarLJ105; [1984]55STC93(Kar)
ORDERVenkatachaliah, J.1. These writ petitions are amongst the batch of writ petitions challenging the levy of an additional tax on turnover under section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 [as substituted by section 3 of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1981 (Karnataka Act 7 of 1981)]. As the contentions urged are common, all the writ petitions were heard together so that all the learned counsel appearing in the cases are afforded an opportunity of being heard. The writ petitions now disposed of by this order are, so far as the contentions raised and urged are concerned, representative of the batch. The other petitions in the batch will be disposed of in convenient batches following this pronouncement. 2. The petitioners are 'dealers' registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 6B of the 'Act', as it presently obtains, was substituted in place of the old section 6B, by section 3 of the Karnataka Act 7 of 1981. Section...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesha Prabhu and ors. Vs. K. thejappa Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1982
Reported in: ILR1982KAR830
ORDER1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these three petitions they were clubbed and heard together.2. Sri Thajappa Shetty, the respondent in these three petitions, has filed five applications, all under Clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act), against five of his tenants in occupation of the premises respectively mentioned in the said applications, for their eviction. The petitioners in these three petitions are respondents in three of those proceedings pending on the file of the Munsiff, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada. The two petitioners in C. R. Ps. 2696 and 3063/80 respectively, and the petitioners in C. R. P. No. 3064/80 are respondents in H.R.C. Nos. 270, 269 and 267 of 1979 respectively on the file of the Munsiff.3. On the ground that common questions are involved and that it would facilitate a fair trial if common evidence is recorded the landlord requested the Munsiff, to try these five proceedings afte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›