Karnataka Court April 1984 Judgments

Chandrana Brothers Vs. Jalajalaxmi S. Bhat

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1985Kant33; ILR1984KAR141

ORDER1. C. R. P. No. 3867 of 1983 has been filed by defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O. S. No. 129 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore. They have challenged the order dated 25-10-1983 passed on I. A. S. Nos. IV and V. C. R. P. No. 598 of 1984 has been filed by defendant 2 in the said suit challenging the very order. The Principal Civil Judge has, by the impugned order, granted leave to the defendants to defendants the suit but on terms, namely, the defendants furnishing security for due performance of the decree that may be passed if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit. He has further directed the defendants to file their written statement within a period of one month from the date of the order.2. C. R. P. No. 3867 of 1983 has been admitted and the impugned order has been stayed. C.R.P. No. 598 of 1984 has come up for admission. Respondent-1 plaintiff has filed I.A. No. 11 in C.R.P. No. 3867 of 083 requesting the Court to vacate the interim order of stay. The Counsel app...

K.V. Rudraiah, Bangalore Vs. B.S. Mudda Gangamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1984KAR261

ORDER1. The respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She obtained an order in C.M.C. No. 4/82 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Gouribidanur under S. 125 of the Cr.P.C. for monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/-. 2. Since the husband is said to have committed default in paying the monthly maintenance she has applied to the court under S. 125(3) of the Code for recovery of the amounts due. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate, overruling the objections of the husband, has directed attachment of the salary payable to the husband by the State Government. It may be noted that he is an employee under the State Government and is working as a Forest Guard in the Department of Forests. 3. Sub-section (3) of S. 125 of the Code provides that 'If the person concerned fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order' the Magistrate may 'issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines .....' 4. The levy of fine is provided for in S. 421 and the ...

Mohan Ramappa Jadhav Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR3265

ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. The question involved in these Writ Petitions is as to whether the Outline Development Plan of Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation can be treated as Master Plan as defined in Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for the purpose of determining the nature of the land and its extent as 'vacant land'.2. It arises thus :--Properties bearing R. S. Nos. 56/1, 57/1, 58/1, situate at Unkal village. Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District and lands bearing S. Nos. 5, 6 and 8/1 situate at Ayodya village, Hubli Taluk, Dharwad District belonging to petitioners respectively are situate, undisputedly, within Hubli-Dharwad Urban Agglomeration area. Pursuant to declaration made under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Competent Authority by the impugned orders has determined extent of vacant land exceeding ceiling limit. In the first case the determination made by the Competent Authority has been set aside by t...

Mangharam and Sons Vs. R.C. Morzaria and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1984KAR923

ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. Both these proceedings have arisen out of the same proceeding - Cr. No. 182/82 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate (III Court) Bangalore City.2. That proceeding before the Magistrate arose out of two rival Claim Petitions, one filed by Morzaria (Petitioner in Cr. R.P.No. 204/83 and first respondent inCr.R.P. 882/82 and the other by Mangharam and Sons (Petitioner in Cr. R.P. 882/82 and second respondent in the other Petition) requesting the Court to entrust to him the interim custody of the motor vehicle in question Truck (Goods Carrier) bearing No. MYA. 9123.3. By the impugned order the Learned Magistrate has entrusted the vehicle to Morzaria on condition that he executes an indemnity bond in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with two local solvent sureties. Mangharam's Petition is directed against that order made in favour of Morzaria and rejecting his claim. Morzaria's Petition is against that part of the impugned order directing him to furnish a Bond to the e...

Sugesan Finance Investment by Its Partner Vs. State of Karnataka by It ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1984KAR78

ORDERN. D. Venkatesh, J.1.This Revision is directed against the order dated 29-9-1983 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, II Court, Bangalore, in hisproceeding No. P.C.R. 27/83. That proceeding was on a private complaint filed by the petitioner u/s 200 of the Cr.P.C, against the accused (respondents 2 and 3 herein) for an offence under Sec, 406 of the I.P.C.2. After the complaint was presented by the complainant, the complaint was posted to hear re : the jurisdiction. Two days later he heard the counsel appearing for the complainant, perused the complaint and the documents produced along with the petition and ordered as under:'Taking into the entire facts of the case, it is clear that dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Hence, it is held that it is of civil nature. Hence, complaint stands dismissed'.3. Challenging this order two submissions were made by the counsel for the complainant (petitioner herein). His firstsubmission is that without recording the sworn statements of the...

Mangharam and Sons, Bangalore Vs. R.C. Morzaria and anr.

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. Both these proceedings have arisen out of the same proceeding Cr. No. 182/82 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate (III Court) Bangalore City. 2. That proceeding before the Magistrate arose out of two rival claim petitions, one filed by Morzaria (Petitioner in Cr.R.P. No. 204/83 and first respondent in Cr.R.P. 882/82) and the other by M/s. Mangharam and Sons (petitioner in Cr.R.P. 882/82 and second respondent in the other petition) requesting the Court to entrust to him the interim custody of the motor vehicle in question' Truck (Goods Carrier) bearing No. MYA 9123. 3. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate has entrusted the vehicle to Morzaria on condition that he executes an indemnity bond in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with two local solvent sureties. Mangharam's petition is directed against that order made in favour of Morzaria and rejecting his claim. Morzaria's petition is against that part of the impugned order directing him to furnish a Bond to the extent r...

Oriental Machinery and Civil Construction Ltd. Vs. Vikrant Tyres Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1985(1)KarLJ35

Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This petition under s. 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is made by the petitioner-company which is duly incorporated under the Act, praying for an order of this court winding-up the respondent, Vikrant Tyres Ltd., also a company incorporated under the aforementioned Act. 2. The ground for winding up is that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts inasmuch as the respondent-company has not paid a sum of Rs. 5,47,443.03 being the principal amount due under the contract together with interest at the prevailing bank rates from March, 1980, till March 31, 1982, and interest from May 1, 1982, to November 1, 1982 at the same rate. The petitioner-company issued a statutory notice demanding the above amount dated May 20, 1982. Despite that, the respondent-company did not pay the amount but instead issued a reply dated notice stating that the respondent-company has counter-claims against the petitioner-company and, ther...

Kodanda Touring Talkies Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1986Kant158

Venkatachala, J.1. The validity of sub-r.-(2), R. 98, Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), arises for our determination in the present Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals.2. The Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964, came into force in the State of Karnataka, on 15-3-1971. Section 19 of that Act empowered the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of such rule making power, the State Government made the Rules. Sub-rule (2) of R. 98, the validity of which is under challenge, was subsequently inserted in the Rules, by R. 11, Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (First Amendment) Rules, 1974. When that sub-rule was inserted in the Rules, a large number of touring cinemas exhibitors in the State challenged its validity, by filing Writ Petitions in this Court.Chandrashekar, J. who heard those Writ Petitions, dismissed them upholding the validity of that sub-rule, by his order Dt. 18-10-1974 (See Lak...

Kodanda Touring Talkies Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR1

ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. The validity of sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'); arises for our determination in the present Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals.2. The Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964, came into force in the State of Karnataka, on the 15th of March 1971. Section 19 of that Act empowered the StateGovernment to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of such rule making power, the State Government made the Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 98, the validity of which is under challenge, was subsequently inserted in the Rules, by Rule 11 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (First amendment) Rules, 1974. When that sub-rule was inserted in the Rules, a large number of touring cinemas exhibitors in the State challenged its validity, by filing Writ Petitions in this Court. Chandrashekar, J. (as he then was), who heard those Writ Petitions, dismissed them upholding the valid...

K. Venkataramanappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1984KAR205

ORDERMahendra, J.1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have challenged the validity of the acquisition of their lands under the Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the State of Karnataka.2. Petitioners own lands at Bommasandra village in Anekal Taluk. Acquisition proceedings were initiated by the State of Karnataka to acquire their lands and various other persons under the Act by a notification dated 28-2-1981 under Section 28(1) published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 5-3-1981-Ann. 'A'. The petitioners were served with notices to show cause within 30 days from the date of service of notice as to why their lands should not be acquired. Petitioners in W.P. Nos. 25572, 25573 and 25574 of 1981 were served with notice on 28-3-1981 while the petitioner in W. P. No. 25575 of 1981 was served with notice on 26-3-1981. While the petitioner in W.P. No. 25572 of 1981 filed his objections on 11-5-1981, the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 25573 and 255...