Karnataka Court February 1983 Judgments
H. Manjunatha Nayak Vs. Ullal Dayananda Hanumanth Nayak (by L. Rs.) an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant55; 1983(1)KarLJ383
1. This appeal by defendant 2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-9-1974 passed by the District Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore in R. A. No. 2 of 1971, on his file, dismissing the appeal on confirming the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1970, passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O. S. No. 142 of 1969, on his file. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge for recovery of Rupees 17,600/- against the detendants. He averred in the paint that the first defendant is a partnership firm of which defendants 2 and 3 are partners. The defendants were taking advances from the plaintiff for supply of cocoanut off and oil cakes at the agreed prices and the business was thus carried on from 23-10-1968 to 15-10-1969. As on 15-101969, a sum of Rs. 22,650/- was due from the defendants. Between 15-10-1969 and 21-10-1969 the defendants supplied 86 tins of cocoanut oil working out to Rs. 5050/- in respect of which bills and invoices have not been sent to the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!B. Venkataramiah Vs. Divisional Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Kant59
ORDER1. This petition is directed against the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 7-12-1982 passed in VPC Appeal 24 of 1982-83. The facts leading to that order may be briefly stated as follows:-The petitioner herein was the Chairman of the Village Panchayat of Pothaganahally -respondent 3 herein. The Vice-Chairman of the said Panchayat supported by 9 other members issued notice of their intention to move a 'no confidence' motion against the Chairman on 6-4-1981. They sent the notices to: (1) the Chairman, the present petitioner in this Court, (2) the Secretary of the Panchayat and (3) the Chief Executive Officer of the Taluk Board. All the notices were received on 9-4-1981 by the respective addressees (this fact is not disputed before me by the leaned Counsel appearing for, The petitioner). There after, no meeting was called by the Chairman in accordance with Rule 5 of the No-Confidence Motion Against Chairman or Vice-Chairman of Panchayat (Procedure) Rules, 1951. In accordance ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›