Karnataka Court February 1985 Judgments
Gulam Ali Vs. Karnataka Board of Wakfs and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant242; ILR1985KAR3321; 1985(1)KarLJ385
ORDER1. On the last occasion this petition was heard in part and was adjourned to enable learned Counsel for the Wakf Board to obtain the records and instructions in the matter. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the Wakf Board Sri Mahboob Ali Khan submits that he has received the instructions and is ready to argue the matter. Hence, this petition is heard for final disposal.2. In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dt. 16-12-1983 bearing No. KTW.10 CMC-BNU/79 passed by the first respondent produced as Annexure-F. The petitioner has also sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to constitute a committee of Muthavallis for managing the Bakarabad Trust alias Aga Ali Asker Wakf and its properties described in the Schedule to the petition and hand over possession of the Wakf to the said committee.3. The Wakf in question is known as Aga Ali Asker Wakf. The properties of the Wakf ...
Tag this Judgment!Sadiq Sab Vs. Akhilandamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1737
Nesargi, J.1. Sri D.L.N. Rao, the learned Advocate, had appeared on behalf of the Caveator in R.S.A. No. 659 of 1984 on 21-8-1984. He undertook to appear for respondents in R.S.A. Nos. 660 and 661 of 1984 also. The Court after recording this under-taking, directed the office to show his name as appearing for the respondents in R.S.A. Nos. 660 and 661 of 1984 and further directed to post the said two appeals with R.S.A. No. 659 of 1984 and granted an order of stay in all the three appeals. Sri. D.L.N. Rao now states that he has filed his Vakalat on behalf of respondent in R.A.S. Nos. 660 and 661 of 1984.2. Sri K.S. Savanur, appearing on behalf of the appellants in these matters and Sri D.L.N. Rao, requested that in view of the substantial question involved in these appeals being common and further in view of the fact that the Supreme Court as in Lakshmi Narayan Guin -- Niranjan Modak, settled the said question, these appeals be heard for final disposal. Hence arguments have been heard.3...
Tag this Judgment!Huchegowda Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3696
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner has presented this Writ Petition praying for quashing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal presented by Respondent-3 and setting aside the order of the Arbitrator which was in favour of petitioner.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was an employee of the 3rd Respondent-society, since 16-8-1971. In January 1977 the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order of the 3rd Respondent-society. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short). The dispute was referred to the Arbitrator of Co-operative Societies, Mandya District, Mandya, for adjudication. By Order dated 1-8-1978, the Arbitrator held that the condition imposed to the effect that the petitioner would not be entitled to subsistence allowance was invalid. The Arbitrator further held that the petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance as also arrears o...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapati Santaram Bhosale and anr. Vs. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant143; ILR1985KAR1115; 1985(2)KarLJ104
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated March 27, 1975 of the Prl. Civil Judge, Bijapur, in O.S. No. 75/1972 on his file.2. RFA No. 87/75 has been preferred by defendants 5 and 6 and RFA No. 90/1975 has been preferred by defendant-4.3. The facts leading to the present appeals may be briefly stated as follows: -Plaint was presented by respondent- I before us, who was the plaintiff in the court below, claiming partition of plaint schedule 'A, 'B' and 'C' properties and separate possession of his share as well as for declaration that alienation of properties in favour of appellants, and others, who bad purchased the same from defendants 1 to 3, to be not binding on him. Plaint schedule 'A' properties consisted of three survey numbers, i.e., Sy. Nos. 933, 934 and 699 of Torvi village in Bijapur Taluka measuring 22 acres 32 guntas, 18 acres 30 guntas and 17 acres 06 guntas respectively. The first of the lands mentioned was valued at Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Chikka Kadirappa Vs. Erappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1634
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a plaintiff-1's revision against the order dated 24-7-1981 passed by the Munsiff, Chikballapur, in O.S. No. 122 of 1973 allowing plaintiff - 3 to withdraw the suit.2. The three plaintiffs jointly filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction. An interim application was filed by plaintiff - 3 under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the suit. The Trial Court granted the same. Hence the revision by the present plaintiff-1.3. The order sheet dated 24-7-1981 reads as :'The plaintiff by Sri K.S.R. Defendant by Sri S.P.G. Objections not filed. Plaintiffs-l and 2 absent. Sri K.S.R. for plaintiffs absent. Sri M.A. for K.S.R. prays for time. His prayer rejected.Heard. Perused the I.A. and affidavit. For the reasons stated in the petition, 3rd plaintiff' is permitted to withdraw the suit against defendants. Hence this suit by 3rd plaintiff stands dismissed only against defendant.Additional reply n...
Tag this Judgment!Pearson Sankaran Vs. Director of Technical Education
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3690
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner, who was an applicant for selection for admission for Engineering Degree Course during theacademic year 1984-85, has presented this Petition praying for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to select the petitioner for admission to the Engineering Degree Course and to allot him a seat as against one of the seats in one of the Government Engineering Colleges or as against one of the Government seats in Private Engineering Golleges.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner passed the XII Standard examination of the Central Board of Education in September 1981. There is no dispute that the said qualification is considered equivalent to the two year Pre-University Course of the Board of Pre-University Education of this State. For the purpose of making selection for admission to the Engineering Degree Course during the current academic year, the State Government prescribed entrance test. For the purpose of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rafi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1498
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions, provisions of Rule 5(3)(a) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') inserted by the Karnataka Motor Vehicles (3rd Amendment) Rules, 1984 is challenged. Rule 5(3)(a) of the Rules has come into force on 30th May. 1984.2. In most of these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are either the applicants for driving licence or the driving schools. Whereas only in two Writ Petitions viz., 10360 and 10361/1984 the Driving Schools are the petitioners. In respect of these petitions, Sri. L. M. Pandurangaswamy, Learned High Court Government Pleader has raised an objection that they have no locus standi inasmuch as they cannot be considered to be aggrieved persons since the impugned rule only affects the applicants who seek driving licence. It appears to me that the objection is well-founded. The validity of the Rule is challenged only on the ground that it is beyond rule making power conferred upon the State ...
Tag this Judgment!Aruna Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant196; ILR1985KAR3673
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the following important question of law arises for consideration'Whether for ascertaining as to whether a person belongs to Backward Class in terms of Government Order made under Clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution providing reservation of seats in professional colleges in favour of backward classes, the income of a person carrying on a profession after deducting establishment and other expenses incurred by him, should be taken as the basis?'2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner passed the Pre-University examination held by the Board of Pre-University Education of this State in April 1984. She secured 84 per cent marks in the optional group. She applied to the 2nd respondent selection committee constituted by the State Government for the purpose of making selection for admission to the medical course in respect of seats in Government Medical Colleges and in respect of Government seats in private medical colleges. She also appeare...
Tag this Judgment!Ningegowda and ors. Vs. K.B. Doddegowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant90
1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated October 9, 1974 of the Addl. Civil Judge, Tumkur, in O.S. No. 36 of 1972 on his file. The suit was for partition of the suit schedule items of properties consisting both immoveable and moveable properties. Plaintiffs claimed that four of them were the sons of defendant-2 and the 5th of them was the wife of defendant-2 and mother of first four plaintiffs. They further claimed that the suit schedule items of properties were all joint family properties of the joint family consisting of defendants 1 to 3. Plaintiffs further alleged that the alienations made by their father defendant-2 were not for legal necessity and that he was having illicit relation with another woman to the exclusion of the 5th plaintiff, his legally wedded wife and, therefore, such alienations should not in any way bind them. They prayed for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and separate possession of the same.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Channarevanna Vs. K.P.S.C.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2011
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Though prayer in these two Writ Petitions is slightly at variance both are directed against procedure to be followed or adopted in case of 'missing answer scripts' in acompetitive examination held by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'KPSC') forrecruitment of (KAS Class I and II) Gazetted Officers in Stale of Karnataka.2. Question arises in this form.Petitioner, in the first case, as a candidate for recruitment of Gazetted Probationers (KAS Class 1 and II) has taken competitive examination held in 1983, the result of which was announced in the year 1984. Interview of successful candidates in written examination is held/being held. Petitioners and few others whose answer scripts in subject-Essay - were missing, were informed that attempt is being made to trace their answer scripts, if not traced,re-examination would be held in so far as those candidates are concerned in thatsubject vide Endorsement dated 14th December 1914 (An...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »