Karnataka Court July 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Chandrasekaragowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3044
Sabhahit, J.1.This Miscellaneous First Appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag, is directed against the Judgment and award dated 29-11-1982 made by the Civil Judge, Gadag, in Landthe Learned Civil Judge, is vitiated because notice was not issued to the Agricultural Produce Market Committe, Gadag.7. Section 20(c) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act reads:'Service of notice - The Court shall thereupon cause a notice,specifying the day on which the Court will proceed to determine the reference, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day, to be served on the following persons, namely.XX XX XX XX(c) if the acquisition is not made for Government, the person or authority for whom it is made.'8. The Supreme Court of India, elucidating Clause (c) of Section 20 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act has observed in N.G.E.F. Ltd. -v.- State of Mysore and others in para-3 of the Judgment thus :'It is obvious that Section 20 (c) makes it obligatory for the Court to issue not...
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Haneef Choohey
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Kant191; ILR1984KAR401
Murlidhar Rao, J. 1. This revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by the learned single Judge of this Court, by order dt. 15-3-1984 : since His Lordship felt that the law laid down in Gurusiddaiah K. v. A. Vittal Bhat : AIR1984Kant66 requires reconsideration, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yeshodai Ammal : [1980]1SCR334 and in Firm Sardarilal Vishwanath v. Pritam Singh : [1979]1SCR111 .2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent landlord has leased out the premises to the petitioner-tenant by a lease deed dt. 10-5-1954, for a period of 10 years, with an option to the tenant to renew the same for a further period of 10 years. The second lease deed came to be executed on 237-1963. In the second lease deed also, there was an option clause enabling the tenant to exercise his option. On the 25th Mar. 1973, the tenant sent a notice to the landlord expressing his willingness to exercise his option, to ren...
B. Sreeramulu Vs. General Manager, K.S.R.T.C and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR683; 1984(2)KarLJ307
ORDERMlimath, CJ.1. This Writ Petition has come before the Division Bench on a reference made by Justice Chandrakantharaj Urs on the ground that there appears to be conflict between the decision of this Court reported in Mahabaleswar Pandari-nathNaik-v.-State of Karnataka & Others 1 and the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Suresh Koshy-v.-University of Kerala 2.2. The Petitioner was a Conductor in the employment of Karnataka State Road TransportCorporation. A disciplinary enquiry was held against him and he was ultimatelydismissed from service by an Order dated 3-12-1979, Annexure-E, passed by the third respondent. The Petitioner has challenged the said order in this Writ Petition on various grounds and has further prayed for a direction to therespondent to reinstate him in service as a Conductor and to grant him all consequential benefits flowingthere from.3. A preliminary objection was raised by Sri B.M. Chan-drashekharaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the K.S.R.T.C. to th...
T. Vamana Kini and Etc. Vs. U. Ramachandra Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR379
Nesargi, J.1. These petitions have been placed before this Bench for final disposal on an order of reference made by a learned single Judge of this Court on 31-1-1984.2. The question of law that is the basis of this reference is, the effect of S. 11 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the. Act) on a proceeding instituted by a landlord of a premises under Cl. (h) of the proviso to S. 21(l) of the Act, seeking for eviction of a tenant residing in the said premises, making out a case that the landlord reasonably and bona fide required the premises for occupation by himself for the purpose of using the same as nonresidential premises.3. These two revision petitions have arisen out of the common order dt.10-101977 passed by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in C. R. Ps. Nos. 79 and 76 of 1977 respectively. The petitioners herein were the petitioners before the District Judge. They had filed the said revision petitions against the orders dt.30-6...
Y. Seetharama Holla and anr. Vs. Gopala Rao and Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant219; ILR1984KAR369; 1984(2)KarLJ168
Nesargi, J.1. These petitions have come up for disposal by this Bench by an order of reference dt. 8-4-1984, made by a learned Single Judge of this Court.2. The learned single judge found that there appeared to be conflict of views expressed in the decision in Misrilal Parasmall v. H. P. Sadasiviah, (1963) 1 Mys LJ 100 and the decision in Lawrence Mascarenhas v. Ignatius Pereira, ILR (1973) Kant 798: (AIR .1973 Mys 324).3. These petitions arise out of a common order dt. 9-8-1982 passed by the XVI Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore City, in HRC. Nos. 5727 of 1980, 5728 of 1980, 5729 of 1980, 5730 of 1980 and 5731 of 1980.4. The undisputed facts are hat the petitioners-landlords are owners of the schedule premises. They filed the proceedings for an order in their favour under S. 21(l)(j), Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), putting forth their requirement that they intended to demolish the structure and put up new construction, according to the pl...
Bhavasara Kshatriya Samaj Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1997; 1985(2)KarLJ250
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1.In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the notification dated 30th December, 1977 published in the KarnatakaGazette of the same date, issued under Section 17 of the Karnataka Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 (herein-after referred to as the 'Act'), produced as Annexure-F. The petitioner has also challenged the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, dated 25-7-1978(Annexure-E) and also another notification dated 18-1-1978 Annexure-G) and the Government Order dated 21/23-8-1979 (Annexure-H).2. The subject - matter of the Writ Petition is 14 guntas of vacant land forming part of the total area of 1 acre 7 guntas of land comprised in Survey No. 691, situated at St. John's Road, Bangalore, the boundaries of which are as follows : East-the land and building known as 'Thoppa Mudaliar's Chatram' ; West - St. John's Road ; South - passage from St. John's Road to Thoppa Mudali...
Sogamall Peeraji Oswal Vs. Hirabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3018
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. The Decree holders filed a suit in O.S. No. 31/1973 on the file of the Munsiff, Muddebihal, for specific performance of an agreement to sell entered into by the judgment-debtor. The said agreement to sell was dated 16-7-1970. The Munsiff, decreed the suit for specific performance. The judgment-debtor filed an appeal. The Appellate Court modified the decree by refusing to grant specific performance but it onlyawarded the refund of the amount paid under the agreement. The Appellate Court passed a decree on 19-3-1977. The decree-holders sued out the execution to recover Rs. 12,501-75, in pursuance of the decree passed by the Appellate Court.2. The Judgment-debtor raised a contention that she was a debtor within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 76) and that the amount in question amounted to a debt within the meaning of the Act of 1976 and therefore under Section 4 of the Act of 1976 the said debt stood discharged...
Doddannavar Bros. Vs. Malathibai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3025
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. The plaintiff (Respondent-1 in this revision) filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property containing a residential house and an open site bearing No. 27/A out of S. No. 24/1A, measuring East to West 140 feet and South to North 102 feet. According to her, she purchased the said property for Rs. 25,000/- from one Teragundi According to her, the first defendant is a registered firm; defendant-2 is one of the partners of the said firm. Thedefendants are occupying the suit premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 35/-. The defendants' tenancy has beenterminated by a notice. The plaintiff and her family members are residing in a rented house. So, she requires the petition premises for her own use. The plaintiff had filed HR.C. No, 219/1975 in the Court of the Munsiff, Belgaum, on the ground that the provisions of the Rent Control Act applied to the property in question. The property came to be included subsequently in the Municipal limits. In view of the decis...
S.M. Hashim Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR909; [1984]57STC335(Kar)
Patil, J. 1. In these revisions, the petitioner has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29th May, 1982, passed on him in C.C. No. 1730 of 1981 by the First Additional J.M.F.C., Sirsi, and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Karwar in Criminal Appeals Nos. 36 to 41 of 1982 on his file. 2. The petitioner was prosecuted for commission of the offence punishable under section 29(g) of the karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with rule 17 of the Rules framed thereunder on the allegation that he had failed to submit returns from April, 1981 to September, 1981. The petitioner, it is not disputed, is a registered dealer and dealing in furnitures at Sirsi. He is a proprietor of a firm named and styled as 'Moonlight Furniture'. According to the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, who is the complainant in the cases, the petitioner having failed to submit his monthly return as provided under secti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›