Karnataka Court March 1985 Judgments
Govindappa Vs. Premanand
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2214
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a plaintiff's revision against the Judgment and decree dated 30-9-1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Sirsi in R.A. 45 of 1978, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 28-7-1978 passed by the Munsiff, Haliyal, in O.S. 192 of 1975 decreeing the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that he had purchased the suit property in a Court auction sale held in Execution Case 63 of 1953 for Rs. 775/- and a sale certificate was issued in respect of the suit property on 25-10-1972. The suit property is in possession of the defendant and that the defendant refused to deliver possession of the same. The plaintiff filed Kirkol Misc. No. 4 of 1974 for obtaining possession of the property. The defendant resisted the same on the ground of limitation. The plaintiff's petition was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession.3. The defendant resisted the suit.4. The Munsiff decreed the suit. The defendant...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Shivappa Vs. State Bank of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1985
Reported in: [1988]63CompCas135(Kar); ILR1985KAR2040; 1985(2)KarLJ220
P.P. Bopanna, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application is taken out by one of the guarantees for the secured debt in favour of first respondent herein owed by the company (in liquidation), namely, Mr. Leaf Tobaca Development Co. P. Ltd., represented by the official liquidator, who is the third respondent herein. It is not in dispute that the first respondent, the State Bank of Mysore, had obtained a mortgage of the properties of the company (in liquidation) as security for the payment of certain amounts loaned by it to that company. The company having failed to pay the said amount, a suit was instituted by the first respondent bank in O.S. No. 78 of 1977 on the file of the Civil Judge, Davangere. The suit was decreed on March 23, 1979, and in Execution Case No. 1341 of 1980, which was filed on December 10, 1980, the first respondent sought for the sale of the mortgage properties in satisfaction of the decree against the company (in liquidation). Accordingly, ...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer P.W.D. Yadgiri Vs. Abdul Salam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1927; (1986)ILLJ368Kant
ORDER1. This is a defendant's revision against the judgment and decree dated 16th September, 1981 delivered by the Civil Judge, Yadgiri in a small Cause Suit No. 1 of 1981 decreeing suit. 2. The Plaintiff was working as a Driver in the Public Works Department. On account of his involvement in a criminal case, he was kept under suspension for the period from 10th March, 1971 to 2nd Novermber, 1971. Later on he was taken to duty on 2nd November, 1971. So, the plaintiff claimed the arrears of salary for the period from 10th March, 1971 to 2nd November, 1971. 3. The defendant resisted the suit. 4. The trial court took the view that the right to salary was a recurring right. Therefore the plea of limitation raised by the defendant, according to the trial court, was not applicable to the facts of the case. Hence it decreed the suit. Hence the revision by the defendant. 5. Article 102 of the old Limitation Act 1908 which is similar to Art. 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963, reads as : 'For wages ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukkatira Devaiah and ors. Vs. M.P. Raja Singh and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant273; 1985(2)KarLJ96
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 3, 4, 5 and 7 against the judgment and decree dated October 19, 1974 made by the Civil Judge, Coorg, Mercara in O.S. No. 30 of 1969 on his file.2. M. P. Rajasingh was plaintiff. M. Kuttappa was Defendant-1. Defendant-2 is the elder brother of defendant-1; defendant-4 is his wife; Defendants 3, 5 and 7 are sons and defendant-6 is his daughter.3. Plaintiff instituted the suit OD the following averments :Defendant-1 for the purpose of liquidating antecedent debts and for necessities of his family borrowed from plaintiff a sum of Rs. 30,000/- securing the suit properties under a simple mortgage deed dated June 6, 1959. He undertook to repay the principal amount with interest at 5% per annum by May 30, 1961. He had described the properties as if they were his pers6nal properties. Defendant -2 joined the execution of the deed since his name was found entered in the Jama Bandi records. Defendant-1 did not repay the loan neither the princ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Devaiah Vs. Raja Singh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1892
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1.This is an appeal by defendants 3, 4, 5 and 7 against the judgment and decree dated October 19, 1974 made by the Civil Judge, Coorg, Mercara in O.S. No. 30 of 1969 on his file.2. M.P. Rajasingh was plaintiff. M. Kuttappa was Defendant-1. Defendant-2 is the elder brother of Defendant-1 ; Defendant-4 is his wife ; Defendants 3, 5 and 7 are sons and Defendant-6 is his daughter.3. Plaintiff instituted the suit on the following averments: Defendant-1 for the purpose of liquidating antecedent debts and for necessities of his family borrowed from plain-tiff a sum of Rs. 30,000/- securing the suit properties under a simple mortgage deed dated June 6, 1959. He undertook to repay the principal amount with interest at 5% per annum by May 30, 1961. He has described the properties as if they were his personal properties. Defendant-2 joined theexecution of the deed since his name was found entered in the Jama Bandi records. Defendant-1 did not repay the loan neither the princi...
Tag this Judgment!D.M. Madashetty Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2642
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner an ex-Revenue Inspector of the Revenue Department of the State Government has presented this Petition praying for quashing the order of the State Government imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement against* W. P. No. 11038 of 1978 dated 7th March 1985him, which order had been confirmed by the Governor on a review petition presented by the petitioner.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :The petitioner was a Revenue Inspector in Mysore City during 1976. A departmental enquiry was held against him by the State Vigilance Commission on the following charge:'That you Sri D. M. Madasetty, while working as Revenue inspector, Mysore City on 26-2-1976 at about 4 p.m. in your office demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 20/- from Sri K. S. Raju son of K. P. Raju of Mysore for recommending the issue of Backward Class Certificate in respect of his sister Smt. Prabhavathi and thus you are guilty of grave misconduct.'The Asst. Di...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. National Flag Perf ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1985
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)113; [1986]159ITR737(KAR); [1986]159ITR737(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J. 1. This appeal is by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Bangalore, and is directed against an order made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('Tribunal') on March 15, 1976 in I.T.A. (Acq.) 21/74-75 reversing his order No. CR 62/1295/73-74/Acq. B., made on November 29, 1974, under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. An immovable property bearing No. 354 situated at I Block, Jayanagar Extension of Bangalore City, measuring 75'+74' -------- X 120/2 or about 8,940 sq. fit. was owned by a partnership firm called M/s. B. Lakshmi narayanaiah Setty & Sons, Bangalore City ('transferor'). On May 31, 1973, the transferor sold the said property to another partnership firm called M/s. National Flag Perfumery Works, Bangalore City ('transferee') for a consideration of Rs. 65,000. On an examination of the said transfer, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on November 14, 1973, recorded his opinion ...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Vajram Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1985
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Kar)154; [1986]159ITR742(KAR); [1986]159ITR742(Karn); [1986]24TAXMAN682(Kar)
Puttaswamy, J.1. These appeals are filed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Bangalore, and are directed against a common order made on February 4, 1975, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal') in Appeals I.T.A. (ACQ) Nos. 10, 11, 12/Bangalore/74-75 reversing his order No. C.R. 62/1518 and 1519/73-74 made on August 28, 1974, under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. An immovable property bearing No. 18/2 and 1813 situated at Vanivilas Road, Bangalore City, consisting of a building and site area measuring 80' x 140' was owned by one Smt. K. S. Lalithamma of Bangalore (the transferor). On June 25, 1973, the transferor by two instruments of transfer, transferred different extents of the said property as detailed in the said instruments, to Sriyuths T. V. Viswanatha Gupta and N. Vajram Setty. of Bangalore for a consideration of Rs. 59,000 and Rs. 81,000 respectively. On an examination of t...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Vs. Managing Director, Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR31
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioner, an employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, has questioned the legality of the notice issued by the Regional Manager of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore Region, under Regulation 35 (2) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, ('the Regulations' for short), proposing to enhance the penalty.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner is a Conductor in the service of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner on certain charges by the Disciplinary Authority. An order dated 10-11-1984 was made by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a fine of Rs. 25/- and a punitive suspension for 20 days. (Vide: Annexure 'C'). By notice dated 7.1.1985 (Annexure 'D'), the Regional Manager, who is the Appellate Authority, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the ord...
Tag this Judgment!Dinesh Lal Vs. Major B.N. Kakde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2211
ORDERMalimath, C.J.1. After admitting this Revision Petition and hearing the Learned Counsel for the respondent who entered appearance I propose to dispose of the case finally.2. The respondent sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he requires the premises in question bona - fide for his personal occupation. As he is a member of the Armed Forces he was rightly entitled to invoke the special provisions enacted for his benefit under Section 21B of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). It is on that basis that the case was disposed of by the Court below. The respondent produced the certificate which according to him satisfies the requirement of Section 21B of the Act and sought eviction of the petitioner the Court below accepting his plea has made an order of eviction.3. In this Revision Petition, Sri Shivaprakash, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, firstly submitted that assuming that the certificate contemplated by Section 21B of the Act has been is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »