Karnataka Court June 1985 Judgments
Rajasekharaiah Vs. President, Sri Jagadguru Annadaneshwara Samsthan Ma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3080; 1985(2)KarLJ464
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. The question, which arises for decision in this revision petition, is of the executability of a decree made under Section 10 (4) (c) (i) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act').2. Briefly slated, the facts are these: The petitioner here held the post of the Head Master in JagadguruAnnadaneshwara Samskritha Pathasala, Mundargi - a private educational in institution run by Jagadguru Annadaneshwara Samsthana Mutt. Respondent-1 here and respondent-2 here are respectively the President and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of that Mutt. That ManagingCommittee, by its order dated 2-8-1982, dismissed the petitioner from his Head-Mastership. The petitioner impugned that order by presenting an appeal under Section 8 of the Act before the Court of District Judge at Dharwad - theEducational Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') constituted by the State Government for the purpose as provided fo...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Khanapuri Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR829
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The petitioners in these two Writ Petitions have questioned the legality of the direction issued by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society under Sub-section 5 of Section 12 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (the Act for short), directing the District Central Co-operative Banks specified in the direction, to introduce a bye-law to the effect that the Managing Director of each of the Banks shall be appointed by the Government.2. The petition is in the orders list. By consent of both the Counsel it is taken up for final hearing.3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :The petitioner in W.P. 9153/1985 is a General Manager of the Belgaum District Central Co-operative Bank Limited (the bank for short). The Bank is a Co-operative institution registered under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner in W.P. 9154/1985 is the Co-operative Banks' Employees Cooperative Credit Society which is a member of the Belgaum District Central Co-operative Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Fakirasa Vs. Shekharayya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2909
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The questions that fall to be answered in this Revision Petition is whether the Learned District Judge committed an error of law in applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Gopichand Balwantharao and Another vs. Pundalik Govindappu and Others in coming to the conclusion that on the available evidence in the case landlords had not made out a case of then need for their own use andoccupation, the tenanted premises from which they had sought the eviction of the tenant and whether the Learned Judge was correct in blindly reading that the petitioners landlords had not pleaded specifically that the tenant had built a building of his own for non-residential use and therefore liable for eviction under Clause (p) of sub-section (l) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The facts may be briefly stated as follows :The landlords are five brothers who carry on some kind of a trade in a ren...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Aided Higher Primary School Society Vs. Joint Director of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4046
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is running an aided Higher Primary School at a place called 'Bala', Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. It is aggrieved by the memo dated 21st July, 1981, issued by the Joint Director of Public Instructions, Mysore Division, Mysore, who is the 1st respondent in this proceeding. The grievance is confined to the last paragraph of that memo which reads as follows :'The Managing Committee should be reconstituted as per Rule 14(i) of Grant-in-Aid Code. The Assistant Educational Officer, Mangalore Taluk, is appointed as Administrative Officer of the above School and authorised to draw and disburse salary of the teachers already approved till the dispute is settled.'2. It is contended for the petitioner that there is no power in the Joint Director of Public Instructions or any other authority to appoint an Administrator in...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Gold Mines Ltd. Vs. Kannappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4050
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order of the House Rent Controller, Kolar Gold Field Area in case No. HRC 1 to 6/1981-82.Briefly the facts are :2. The Bharath Gold Mine Limited, a Public Company registered under the Companies Act, wholly and solely owned by the Government of India, demanded higher rent from some of its tenants in respect of non-residential premises owned by the Company. Some of the tenants agreed to pay the rents and some did not. Those of them who did not, approached the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act for fixation of fair rent for the premises occupied by them. The Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., a petitioner in this petition resisted on the sole ground that the Karnataka Rent Control Act was not operative in so far as the premises belonging to the Company were concerned and therefore the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to decide the fair rent under Section 14 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Sequera Vs. Nagesh Raghunath Goje
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2877
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This revision is by the tenant under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is directed against the order of the District Judge made in revision of the order of the Munsiff in proceedings for eviction under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. The bare facts necessary may be stated and they are as follows :The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the premises was required for his bonafide use and occupation, i.e., the premises in the occupation of the tenant. Tenant among other grounds resisted the eviction on the grounds that it was not so required and that in any event that another premises belonging to the landlord fell vacant during the pendency of the proceedings and landlord having failed to occupy the vacant premises could not possibly sustain his claim on the ground urged by him. The landlord rebutted the defence by contending that there was apartition in 1970 in his family and the house that fell vacant did not fall to his share. T...
Tag this Judgment!Kencha Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2819
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. I. A. II is an application filed by the appellant in this case to recall the Judgment dated 22-2-1985 pronounced by the Court dismissing the appeal for reasons stated therein. The Judgment is signed. In I. A. II which is under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the request is, as already stated, to recall that Judgment and to hear him.2. In support of the application the appellant had filed an affidavit stating that he had engaged a counsel at thefirst instance, but had withdrawn the brief from him in order to engage some other Advocate; that in the mean while he had been laid up with serious illness and that in the meanwhile the appeal had been disposed of after hearing the Public Prosecutor, but not hearing him or his counsel and therefore the Judgment be recalled and he be heard afresh.3. Section 362 Cr. P.C. says that except as otherwise provided in the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court when it has signed its Judgment or final order disposing of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Zafar Sharief Vs. Karnataka University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1985
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1056
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner was a student in B Pharma Degree Course in the year 1981. In July 1981 he took the I Year Examination, but his results were withheld. On enquiry he was told, it was alleged that if he tendered an apology in his own hand writing about the incident said to have occurred out-side the Examination Hall during July 1981 Examination, he would be forgiven and his results announced. The petitioner claims that he complied with the same. A true copy of the letter of apology is to be found at Annexure-A1 to the petition. It does not bear any date.2. Thereafter, by a letter dated 7-11-1981 he received intimation from the Controller of Examinations of the 2nd respondent University namely, the Karnatak University Dharwar, charging him with malpractice of having manhandled the College peon by name Shri K. Ramamurthy i e., by giving blows on his face when the B. Pharma Examination was in progress and the same had been reported by the Senior Supervisors. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Sanualla Vs. Mohammad Ghouse
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-19-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2670
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1.This Revision Petition is by one of the tenants in the three tenements belonging to the landlord. He has suffered an order of eviction in the Court of the Munsiff where the Petition was presented for eviction and also by the District Judge who has confirmed it. The. Respondent-landlord who was the owner oftenements sued eviction of all the three tenants on the ground that he requires the premises inquestion for use and occupation of his own family. That the three tenements are residential is not in dispute. That the landlord lives in a rented premises is also not in dispute. On the evidence placed before the Trial Court, the landlord's need was established and therefore, eviction was ordered.Purring the pendency of the proceeding, one of the tenants voluntarily vacated one of the tenements. When the Revision Petitions of the two other tenants including the present petitioner was pending in the District Court, the other tenant also agreed to vacate the prem...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kamalaksha Shetty Vs. Mizar Annappa Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant250; ILR1985KAR2882
ORDER1. This is a tenant's revision petition under S. 115 of the C.P.C. against the order of the learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, made in exercise of his power under sub-sec. (2) of S. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reversing the order of the learned Munsiff dismissing the eviction petition filed by the landlord for non-payment in accordance with the provisions contained in Cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Act. That the tenant was in arrears of rent was not in dispute. The Munsiff took note of the fact that the tenant had deposited all arrears of rent with interest subsequent to the period of two months after receipt of notice from the landlord. The cause shown by the tenant before the trial Court was that his business had suffered loss and therefore he was not in a position to pay the arrears of rent within the period of two months stipulated in the notice. That statement was accepted by the learned Munsiff a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »