Karnataka Court May 1985 Judgments
Vijaya N. Vithal Vs. M. H. Talageri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2316
ORDERHakeem, J.1. These four Revision Petitions are the off shoots of a single eviction proceeding between the same parties; and since common questions of facts and law are involved these are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of these matters are as follows:'The landlord filed an eviction Petition in H.R.C. No. 94 of 1978, in the Trial Court seeking eviction of the tenant from the residential premises in question on the grounds under Section 2(1)(1) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,1961 (the Act). Upon appreciation of the evidence, while rejecting the landlord's claim for possession of the premises on the ground under Section 21(l)(h) of the Act, the Trial Court allowed the eviction Petition on the ground under clause (p) of Section 21(1) of the Act.'3. Aggrieved by the Trial Court's order the parties preferred Revision Petitions under Section 50 of the Act. While confirming the findings of the Trial Co...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminarayan Bhatta Vs. Narasimha Bhatta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2927
ORDERKulkarni, J1.This is a decree holder's revision against the order dated 9-7-1982 passed by the Munsiff, Shikaripur, in Execution No. 141 of 1981 raising the attachment in respect of Rs. 2,614-95P deposited by the Tahsildar in the Court.2. The decree holder had obtained a decree against the judgment debtor in O.S. No. 20 of 1972. The decree holder got attached the amount of Rs. 2,614-95P drawn by the Tahsildar as arrears of salary belonging to the judgement debtor.3. The judgment debtor contended that the said amount amounted to a salary within the meaning of Section 60(i) C.P.C. and therefore it was not liable to be attached at all and hence he prayed for raising of the attachment. The plea raised by the judgment debtor appealed to the Court below and it raised the attachment. Hence the revision by the decree holder.4. It becomes clear from the order passed by the Court below that the judgment debtor was working as a Shanubogue and that as the pay scale was revised and raised with...
Tag this Judgment!Hutchamma Vs. Meligowda @ Chikkahydegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3264
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by plaintiff challenging the decree and judgment in O.S. 34 of 1970 made by the Civil Judge, Mandya.2. The facts are these :Hutchamma plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant. They are even otherwise closely related, but un-fortunately their married life appears to have left a lot of bitterness, even after two issues were born.Channegowda alias Doddahydegowda was the father of plaintiff. He died in the year 1947 or 1948. He left behind him his widow Ningamma, mother Kempamma and plaintiff who was then about six years. Doddahydegowda also left*R.F.A. No. 121 of 1975 dated 28th May 1985behind some properties consisting of 1 acre 25 guntas of wet land, 2 acres 16 guntas of dry land and two houses. After the death of Doddahydegowda, since there was no male member to manage these properties, Ningamma brought her own brother-defendant to live with her and to manage the properties. The defendant accordingly lived with Ningamm...
Tag this Judgment!Rudre Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3106; (1986)ILLJ448Kant
ORDER1. Government provisionally accepting finding of guilt recorded by Commissioner of Enquiries (State vigilance Commission) and recommendation of Vigilance Commissioner issued show-cause notices dated 4th March, 1985 and 6th March, 1985 (Marked as Annexure-F and G). Enquiry Officer relying on result of phenolphthalein test and oral evidence let in on behalf of the prosecution recorded a finding that charge of misconduct of acceptance of illegal gratification is established. On a consideration of representation made pursuant to show cause notices. Government concurred with the finding of Enquiry Officer as also recommendation of Vigilance Commissioner and ordered compulsory retirement as per impugned order date 24th April, 1985 (marked as Annexure-J). 2. While challenging impugned order both on irregularities committed in the conduct of enquiry as well as finding on its merits, petitioner has challenged vires of proviso to Rule 8 of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control a...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Kotagi Vs. Tahsildar, Gadag and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Kant265
ORDER1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 7-12-1981, passed by respondent-1, marked as Annex. 'U.2. In retrospect, the facts are as follows :On 8-8-1962, second respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'pledge') pledged gold ornaments with Canara Bank, Gadag, and obtained loan of Rs. 1900/-. On 21-12-1962, pledge authorised respondent-3 to discharge the loan and take release of pledged articles. According to petitioner's application dated 3-12-1976 (An. 'B') it was third respondent Shivappa Basappa Mugali, who discharged the loan and took delivery of pledged articles; this is reaffirmed in his statement (Annex. 'E') before the Tahsildar. The petitioner is pledge's wife's uncle. During the enquiry, it transpired that petitioner (not respondent-3) took delivery of the pledged articles and he has signed the receipt, in the Bank; the said receipt is not produced. The Magistrate passed an order against the petitioner to return the articles; this order was challenged by the petitioner in W...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of the City of Bangalore Vs. Andanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant231; ILR1985KAR2104; 1985(2)KarLJ202
Malimath, C.J.1. This Appeal is by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Senior Health Inspector of the Corporation of City of Bangalore challenging the order made by the Learned single Judge in Writ Petn. 11945 of 1978. The appellants issued a show cause notice to the Respondent alleging that he has been running a milk dairy at premises No. 40, Vth Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 10 without obtaining the licence as required by law. The Respondent by his letter written through his Counsel dated 23rd September, 1978, Annexure D, showed cause. In the said representation it is stated that the Respondents, no doubt, a milk vendor who sells milk in Rajajinagar Lrea. It is however stated that so far as premises No. 40 is concerned, it is a small shop measuring about 4' X 6' in which a tailor has been running a tailoring shop in the name and style of Sri. Vijayalakshmi Tailoring Hall. It is further stated that in the early hours of each day and in the afternoons, the Respondent vends mil...
Tag this Judgment!Ameer Jan Vs. Town Municipal Council
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR708
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this writ Petition, petitioners, who are 10 in number, have questioned the legality of the carder of the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, dismissing their petitions presented under Section 303 of the Karnataka Town Municipalities Act, 1964 (the 'Act' for short).2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows -Land in Sy.No. 51 of Siddlaghatta Town was acquired by the Government for the benefit of Municipality for the purpose of converting the land into house sites. On 26-8-1964 the Town Municipal Council resolved to dispose of the sites at upset price of Re. One per square yard in favour of number of persons. A report about the resolution was also sent to the Deputy Commissioner on 6-12-1984. A petition was presented to the Divisional Commissioner by some of the residents of the Town stating that the sites had been disposed of in favour of the relatives of the Municipal Councillors and also to persons belonging to the party of the Council...
Tag this Judgment!P.B. Rai Vs. Reza Jalali
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2385; 1985(2)KarLJ457
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. If a suit is dismissed by a Court before recording evidence on the merits of the claim therein, accepting the report of the suitor that that suit had been settled out of Court by agreement of parties, can it refuse to the suitor refund of half the amount of fees sought under Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('the Act'), on the ground that the agreement of parties relating to settlement so reported had not been established, is a matter whichneeds to be decided upon in this Revision Petition.2. The petitioner here, a suitor, instituted in the Court below, a suit against the defendant therein claming from him certain money. Fee payable under the Act respecting that claim in the suit, had been paid However, beforerecording the evidence on merits of the claim in the suit, the suitor having reported to the Court below that the suit was settled out of Court by agreement of parties, sought from it,dismissal of that suit as settled out...
Tag this Judgment!Rajamallaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-13-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1802; 1985(2)KarLJ541
1. As common questions of law arise for determination in all these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this common Judgment. 2. For different excise years commencing on the 1st of July of every calendar year and ending on the 30th June of the succeeding calendar year, the appellants were the highest bidders of the right to vend country liquor like toddy or arrack for one or the other revenue District/Taluka or part of them as is the case, in the excise tender-cum-auctions held for that purpose under the Karnataka Excise Act of 1965 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1966) ('the Act') and the Karnataka Excise (Lease of the Right of Retail Vend of Liquors) Rules 1969 ('1969 Rules') framed thereunder. On the final acceptance of their bids by Government, the appellants executed 'Lease Deeds' or written contracts with Government inter alia agreeing to pay shop rentals or 'kists' every month on or before the agreed dates and were thereafter vending liquor in the approved shops. 3. In exercise of the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›