Karnataka Court September 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.
Syndicate Bank Vs. Mahadevappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-13-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR530
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the decree holder against the order dated 16-6-1980 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Ranebennur in Execution No. 8 of 1980 dismissing the same with liberty to the decree holder to file the execution case in the Court of the Munsiff at Hirekerur.2. The brief facts are as below :The decree holder Syndicate Bank filed a suit O. S. No. 225 of 1976 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Ranebennur, against the judgment debtors for recovering Rs. 3,529-85 together with future interest. The suit was decreed on 20th December, 1977. It was ordered that the defendants should pay to the decree holder Bank the said amount in three instalments of Rs. 1,000/- each. None of theinstalments was paid by the defendants. Hence on I9-1-1980 the decree holder levied the execution in Execution No. 8 of 1980 in the Court of the Munsiff, Ranebennur, for recovering Rs. 6,579-60 as calculated upto 11-1-1980. The prayer was for attachment of the salary of the judgment debt...
K.S. Ramakrishan Setty Vs. ClarIn Fisheries P. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1984
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas508(Kar)
1. This is a petition under section 433 (e) and (f) read with section 439 (1) (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), made by one K.S.Ramakrishna Setty seeking an order of this court winding - up the first respondent - Clarion Fisheries Private Ltd. - a company incorporated under the provisions of the Act having its registered office at No. 45, Industry House, Fair-Field Road, Bangalore -1. It is alleged by the petitioner that the former directors of the first respondent - company, Shri N.C.Soundara Pandian and Shri Jayaram Balaram Singh, approached him for financial assistance whereupon an agreement dated February 28, 1982, was executed by them under which the petitioner agreed to invest in the first respondent - company by way of deposits as well as by purchase of equity shares not exceeding one-third of the paid - up capital and half of the deposits. That agreement forms annexure A to the petition. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner claims that he inve...
Dr. T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1056
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 ('the Act' for short) and the orders madethere under.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The 1st Petitioner is Dr. T.M.A. Pai Foundation, which is a trust registered under the Trusts Act. The 2nd Petitioner is Manipal Institute of Technology, which is an educational institution, owned and administered by the 1st Petitioner Trust. Petitioners 3 to 6 are the trustees. An institution called 'The Academy of General Education' was founded by Dr.T.M.A. Pai in the year 1942. It was registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act. At that point of time, Manipal, the place at which the Academy was founded was in the former State of Madras. After reorganisation of States, it has become part of the new State of Karnataka. Para 29 of the Memorandum of Association, made the founder of the ...
Ramakrishna Setty Vs. Clarian Fisheries (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1102
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.This is Petition under Section 433(e) and (f) read with Section 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made by one K. S. Ramakrishna Setty seeking an order of this Court Binding up the 1strespondent Clarions Fisheries Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Act having its registered office at No. 45, Industry House, Fair-Field Road,Bangalore-1. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the former Directors of the 1st respondent-Company Shri N.C. Soundara Pandiyan and Shri Jayaram Balaram Singh approached him forfinancial assistance whereupon an agreement dated 28th February, 1982 was executed by them under which the Petitioner agreed to invest in the 1st Respondent Company by way of deposits as well as by purchase of equity shares not exceeding 1/3rd of the paid up capital and half of the deposits. Thatagreement forms Annexure-A to the Petition. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner claims that he investe...
C. Munichowdappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR858; 1985(1)KarLJ110; (1985)ILLJ356Kant
ORDERMurlidhar Rao, J.1. This writ petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Bopanna, J., by his order dated 2nd April, 1982, since his Lordship felt that the interpretation placed by his Lordship in Raghavendra Rao, N. S. v. State of Karnataka & Others (1981 (1) Kar. L.J. 56), requires to be examined by a larger Bench, as the question involved, is of considerable importance. His Lordship has also referred another matter to a Division Bench in W.P. No. 5073 of 1980. 2. The sum and substance of the order of reference is, whether it is incumbent on the Government, to examine the gravity of punishment imposed on the workman, objectively before it refuses to make a reference under Ss. 10 and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a security guard in the security department of the third respondent - the management of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to a...
Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Poovappa Salian and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant116
ORDER1. This is a revision by the decree-holder Bank against the order dt. 3-9-1979 passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, in Execution Case No. 112 of 1977 allowing I. A. IX and dismissing the execution.2. Judgment-debtor No.1 Viswanath had borrowed money from the decree-holder-Bank (Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd.). One, Sankappa father of judgment-debtor No. 2 had stood surety in respect of the said loan. The Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd., filed a suit and obtained a decree against the principal debtor as well as the surety. The plaintiff 'Bank sued out the execution against both the judgment-debtors. Poovappa is the legal representative of the surety. In the course of the execution, judgment-debtor No. 1 Viswanath requested the decree-holder to grant him monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.250/-. The decree-holder had no objection for the same and agreed to give monthly instalments of Rs.250/- to the principal judgment-debtor. Poovappa, the L.R. of the origi...
Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Vs. Poovappa and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1984
Reported in: ILR1985KAR255
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the decree-holder-Bank against the order dated 3-9-1979 passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, in Execution Case No. 112 of 1977 allowing I.A.IX and dismissing the execution.2. Judgment-debtor No. 1 Viswanath had borrowed money from the decree-holder-Bank(Maharastra ApexCorporation Ltd). One Sankappa father of Judgment-debtor No. 2 had stood surety in respect of the said loan. The Maharastra Apex Corporation Ltd., filed a suit and obtained a decree against the principal debtor as well as the surety. The plaintiff-Bank sued out the execution against both thejudgment-debtors. Poovappa is the legal representative of the surety. In the course of the execution, Judgment-debtor No.1 Viswanath requested the decree-holder to grant him monthly instalments at the rate of Rs. 250/- The decree-holder had no objection for the same and agreed to give monthly instalments of Rs. 250/- to the principal judgment-debtor. Poovappa, the L.R. of the ...
B.S. Giridhar Vs. P.V. Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1984
Reported in: ILR1984KAR1115; 1985(1)KarLJ105
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. This Revision Petition has come up before us, on a reference by Sabhahit, J., vide order dated 10-4-1984; as in his Lordship's view, the decision of the Division Bench in Raghunandan Prasad Garg v. D. Sree Sreeramsetty & others, 1974 (2) K.L.J. 224 to the extent it excludes the 'tenant' as defined in the Karnataka Rent Control Act, by interpreting Section 31 therein, requires reconsideration in the light of the law laid down in Mani Subrat Jain v. Raja RamVohra, : [1980]2SCR141 2.The facts of the case are precisely narrated in the order of reference; to the extent they are relevant to our purpose, we summarise them as follows :Revision Petitioner is the owner of non-residential premises, bearing No. 23, J. C. Road, Bangalore. Petitioner's father, during the Petitioner's minority, leased it to respondent, by executing a registered lease deed dated 10-9-1973, for a period of five years from 1-1-1973; so it expired on 1-1-1978. On 6-3-1978, the owner issued a noti...
Ramagouda Rudregowda Patil and ors. Vs. Lagmavva and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant82
ORDER1. This is a revision by the defendants against the order dt. 19-1-1979, passed by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, in Execution Appeal No. 4 of 1977, reversing the order dt. 11-4-1977, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi, in D. F. Original Suit No. 1.34 of 1972, dismissing the decree final proceedings. 2. The parties have been referred to in the course of this order with reference to their position in Original Suit No. 4 of 1924. 3. The plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 4 of 1924 are the decree-holders. The defendants in the said suit are the judgment- debtors. 4. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O. S. No. 4 of 1924 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Belgaum, for partition and possession of their share in the two suit schedule agricultural lands and a house. The said suit resulted in a compromise, as per the compromise decree dated 24-3-1926. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed Execution Petition No. 368 of 1926 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Fi...
S.A. Hokrani Vs. S. Kouslyabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Kant138; ILR1984KAR825
Mahendra, J.1. On a reference made by the learned single Judge this writ petition is posted before us for hearing.2. The petitioner having now retired from service he is no longer interested in prosecuting the petition. But as the question that arises for consideration in this case is of considerable importance, we propose to consider the merit of the contentions rose in this case.3. The facts of the case are these:The landlady of premises No. 51/1, Out house, Surveyor Street, Basavangudi, Bangalore-4 reported the vacancy, of the premises to the Controller, Bangalore City, Bangalore and requested for release of the premises for her occupation. After this vacancy was notified, the petitioner and seven others applied for allotment of the premises. The petitioner had also obtained a direction by the Divisional Commissioner under S. 8(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for allotting the premises in his favour. The Controller held that the cla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »