Karnataka Court November 1985 Judgments
Sachidanand S.S. Kakodkar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Transport
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3082
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Petitioner is a resident of Goa and was operating a stage carriage under a permit issued by the Transport Authority of Goa Administration on the inter-state route between Sadashivagad in Karnataka and Marmagao in Goa. The petitioner was operating on this inter-state route for over 18 years prior to the date of filing of this Writ Petition. A part of the route that lies in Karnataka State is about 8 Kms. from the State border of Goa upto Sadashivagad.2. The said permit had been countersigned by the Transport Authority of Karnataka up to 14-6-76 after the merger of the Portuguese Territory with India. By virtue of an arrangement entered into between the two Governments, the petitioner was exempted from payment of tax to the State of Karnataka.3. While the petitioner continued to operate on the said inter-state route, it was noticed by the Secretary of the Karnataka State Transport Authority that the petitioner had operated on the route without obtaining the ...
Tag this Judgment!Visalakshamma Vs. Balaji Agencies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR471
ORDERHakeem, J.1. In this Revision Petition the landlord has questioned the legality and correctness of the Trial Court's order directing redelivery of possession of the non-residential premises in question to the tenant by way of restitution under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The landlord sought for eviction of the tenant from the non-residential premises in H.R.C. No. 1361 of 1973 on several grounds under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act). On 7-4-1975 an exparte eviction order came to be passed against the tenant therein by the Trial Court. In Execution case No. 242 of 1975 possession of the premises came 'to be delivered in pursuance of the said exparte order on 9-10-1975. On 11-10-1975 the tenant filed H.R.C. Misc. No. 136 of 1975 before the Trial Court for setting aside the expert order passed in the aforesaid eviction proceedings. The said Petition was ultimately allowed in revision by the District Court, Bangalore, by its order dated 14-1...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. Karnam Ranga Rao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1985
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas477(Kar)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Act. C.J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated September 15, 1984, passed by the Civil Judge, Hospet, in O.S. No. 45 of 1984. 2. It was suit instituted by the Bank of India ('the bank') which is the appellant herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30, 564 which was said to be the amount due and outstanding from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the loan of Rs. 10,000 granted to them for raising sugarcane crop. Defendant No. 3 guaranteed repayment of the loan executing a letter of guarantee. The document exchanged between the parties seem to suggest that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were liable to pay interest at the rate of 4 per cent above the rate prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India subject to the minimum of 13 per cent. with quarterly rests. The bank, however, has charged only half-yearly rests and also claimed at the same rate in the suit. 3. Defedants, while admitting the loan taken, however, denied their liability to pay interest with...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Yellappa Hanamappa Arasal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4114
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. The State of Karnataka has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar, Parasgad Taluk dated 29-2-1980, which is affirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge, Belgaum in Appeal No. 17 of 1980.2. A few facts that need mention are as follows : Land bearing Block No. 233 measuring 6 acres 12 guntas (1/3rd share) of Hulikatti village, Saundatti Taluk, is a Talwarki Inam land. As a consequence of the abolition of village offices, the inam land stood vested in the State Government on 1-2-1963. Though the holder of the inam land made an application for re-grant, there is no dispute that there is no order of re-grant in favour of the holder of the office. On 5-4-1973 the land has been sold in favour of the 1st respondent. The Tahsildar initiated proceedings for summary eviction under Section 7 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. In those proceedings, it was contended by the 1st respondent that notwithstanding the fact that the...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Vs. Rama Bangera
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR973
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a Judgment-debtor/tenant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed against the order of the J Additional Munsiff, Mangalore, made in Execution Case No. 395 of 1983 pertaining to O.S. No. 406 of 1973 on his file.2. O.S. No 406 of 1973 was filed by the decree holder plaintiff for recovery of possession of certain immovable property which was in the possession of the Judgment-debtor as a tenant. That suit came to be decreed on 4 9-1979. The immovable property is situated at Peramannur Village which is outside the City limits of Mangalore City. In other words, at the time the suit was filed it was excluded from the purview of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Principal Act'). It was in that circumstances, the suit had to be filed as an Original Suit in the Court having necessary territorial jurisdiction. The execution case, as is apparent, was filed on 5-9-1983. However, by Karnataka Act N...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jagadish Babu and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1985
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas733(Kar); ILR1986KAR2660
Kulkarni J. 1. These twenty appeals by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. are directed against the common judgment and awards dated January 19, 1982, passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandya, in Miscellaneous (MVC) Cases Nos. 2 to 21 of 1980, on his file, allowing them and awarding different amounts of compensation in each case and holding all the respondents, including the present appellant insurance company, liable.2. The omnibus bearing Registration No. MER 2790, belonging to respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, was hired by 13 adults and 7children for making a pilgrimage to various places like Udipi, Dharmasthala and other places. After finishing the pilgrimage, they were returning to Bangalore by about 10.30 p.m. on July 19, 20, 1979. Respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal was driving the said omnibus. According to the claimants, he was driving the said omnibus in a rash and negligent manner and at a terrific speed. While the omnibus left the road...
Tag this Judgment!Naganagouda Vs. Kamalaxi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1229
ORDERNarayana Rai Kudoor, J.1. The matter arises in this way. The respondent Kumari Kamalaxi (Complainant) filed a complaint under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code ('the Code') before the Principal Munsiff & I Additional JMFC., Ranebennur against the petitioners (accused) for various offences under the Indian Penal Code including offences under Section 307 and 392 of Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the Complainant directed issue of process against the accused for several offences including the offences under Sections 207 and 395 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code as per his order dated 14-8-1985.2. It is the correctness of this order that is sought to be assailed in this Revision Petition. Heard the learned Advocates H.F.M, Reddy and Deshpande for the petitioners and Sri W. V. Arabatti for the respondent.3. The main argument on behalf of the accused was addressed by Sri Deshpande. Sri H. F. M. Reddy put emphasis on the submissions...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Kallappa Yallappa Goni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1225
ORDERPatil, J.1. This revision by the State is directed against the order dated 27-7 1982 passed by Sri V. G. Charati, J.M.F.C., Bailhongal in C.C. No. 196/82, whereby the Learned Magistrate finding fault with the investigation made without prior permission has proceeded to make the order acquitting the accused.2. In the first instance, the State filed appeal aginst the said order. Since the Magistrate bad proceeded to acquit the accused without trial, this Court held that inspite of the expression 'acquitted', it only amounts to a discharge of the accused and accordingly directed to register the appeal as revision. Accordingly, the appeal having been registered as revision, it has come up for hearing.The facts of the case briefly stated are these :-3. One Basavaraj Maharudrappa Angadi of Bailhongal village, who was working as a Patkari in Irrigation Department at Bailhongal was engaged in opening a sub-canal in the limits of Budihal village in Block No. 1-B, on 1-2-1982. When he was s...
Tag this Judgment!Sheenappa Gowda Vs. Somakka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR999
Nesargi, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 38 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Sullia, Dakshina Kannada District, have preferred this appeal challenging the Judgment and decree, dated 24 11-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Puttur, in R.A. No. 111 of 1975.2. The respondent - plaintiff filed the suit for a decree directing the defendants to pay her amounts paid by her to defendants as per the sale deed (Ex. P. 1) Rs. 5056-00, interest thereon at 5 1/2% per annum from 12-8-1969 uptodate (i.e. the date of the suit) amounting to Rs. 557.16 Ps. and costs of lawyer's notice by registered post Rs. 25/-. She further prayed that on the failure of the defendants to pay her claim, a decree be passed directing the sale of suit Schedule 'B' properties for realisation of the amount decreed. The suit was filed on 25-8-1971.3. The suit 'A' Schedule Properties consist of 5 items of lands.4. The plaintiff contended that the defendants sold the suit schedule 'A' properties to her on 12-8-1969 by...
Tag this Judgment!Sterling Foods and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR713; 1986(2)KarLJ242; [1986]62STC238(Kar)
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases have been posted before a Division Bench for disposal. 2. As the questions that arise for determination are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions urged, it is useful to notice the facts in Writ Petition No. 27805 of 1982 in some detail as illustrative only. 4. M/s. Sterling Foods, Mangalore, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27805 of 1982, a partnership firm of partners, which is engaged in dealing in prawns and other sea-food products, is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) and the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956) ('the KST and CST Acts') on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments), Mangalore (ACCT). 5. The petitioner purchases shrimps, prawns and lobsters locally and they are then cleaned, peeled, processed, frozen and packed in cartons w...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »