Karnataka Court June 1985 Judgments
Barikara Narasayya Vs. Basavana Gowd
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2937; 1985(2)KarLJ274
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by defendants 1 to 3 against the judgment and decree dated 10-8-1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Bellary, in S.C. 308 of 1980, decreeing the suit.2. One Chinna Ayyanna, father of defendants 1 to 3, borrowed Rs. 1,800/- from defendant No. 4 on 27-9-1977 and executed the pronote agreeing to repay the loan with interest at 18 percent per annum. Defendant No. 4 assigned the pronote in favour of the plaintiff for valid consideration on 10-9-1980 at Bellary. The plaintiff is a holder of the pronote in due course. Chinna Ayyanna died leaving behind defendants 1 to 3 as his legal representatives, in the first week of October 1977. Notwithstanding the notice, the defendants did not pay the amount. Hence, the suit.3. Defendants 1 to 3 resisted the suit. Defendant No. 4 remained absent.4. Ultimately the Court below decreed the suit. Hence, the revision by the defendants.5. The Court below, on the strength of the evidence of the plaintiff and Linganagowd P.W. ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Vs. Deputy Commissioner for Transport
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4144
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. Sri S. Udaya Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader was directed to take notice for the respondent. Accordingly, he has put in appearance. This matter relates to suspension of the Registration Certificate. It is taken up for final disposal itself.2. In this Petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders dated 19-1-1985 bearing No. DSA. I. CR. 583/85 86 and 25-3-1985 bearing No. DCT. RGN.15/84-85 passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively and produced as Annexures A and B respectively.3. The Petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. MYU 4613. On four occasions, viz., 18-8-1984 1-9-1984, 3140-1984 and 17-11-1984. he has used the stage carriage in question without a permit. On the previous day of each of the aforesaid dates, he had applied for special permit and without the grant of special permit, he had used the Vehicle on the subsequent dates. These facts are not disputed. In...
Tag this Judgment!Sathyanarayana Trading Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4185
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. Civil Revision Petition Nos. 710 and 711 of 1982 by the plaintiffs are directed against the order dated3-11-1981 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore, in O.S. Nos. 163 of 1976 and 205 of 1976 dismissing the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and refusing to recast the issue. Civil Revision Petition No. 712 of 1982 by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 3-11-1981 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore, in O.S. No. 159 of 1976 deleting the issue.2. The common facts in all these three cases are thus :The plaintiff in each case placed an order for delivery of some quantity of Methy with defendant-3. Defendant-3 consigned the goods in question to the out agency defendant-2 whose duty is to hand over the goods to defendant-1 for carriage and delivery to the consignee plaintiff in each case. According to the plaintiff, on production of the railway receipts, the goods were not delivered to him. H...
Tag this Judgment!Antony Angeline Vs. B. Vijaya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1866
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.These two revision petitions filed under Section 115 C.P.C. are directed against the common order dated 4-2-1985 passed by the learned District Judge D. K., Mangalore, in H.R.C, Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 131 and 132 of 1983 on his file. The facts leading to these revision petitions may be briefly stated as follows :-1. Respondent in these petitions purchased the petition premises bearing Nos. 313, 314 and 315 in the City of Mangalore from the previous owner on 16-11-1976. Soon thereafter he issued notices under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking the two tenants of premises bearing Nos. 313 and 314 to vacate the same as he required the said premises for his own bonafide use and occupation. It will be useful to set out that premises No. 315 was kept vacant by the landlord though it had been in the occupation of a tenant before and he had vacated. In that circumstances the respondent/landlord...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Subhan Vs. State and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2443
ORDERKudoor, J.1. This criminal revision is by the accused in C.C. No.86/84 on the file of the Munsiff & Addl. J.M.F.C., Nanjangud, directed against the order dated 16-1-1984 passed by the Sessions Judge at Mysore in Cr. R.P. No. 72 of 1983 with a prayer to set aside the said order and also further quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 86/84 initiated against the petitioner-accused.2. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the Court of the first instance in the course of this order.3. The matter arises in this way :T.N. Govindaraju filed a private complaint under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) against S.P. Subhan for an offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. in the Court of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Nanjangud which was registered as CR. No. 20/83. The material averments made in the complaint are these :The complainant was working as a I Division Clerk in the office of the Joint Director of Public Instruction at My...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhara Bhat Vs. Prabhavathi Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3381; 1985(2)KarLJ453
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal arising out of a Matrimonial Cause, is by the husband, who along with the Respondent-wife had filed a joint-petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) and is directed against the order dated 6-2-1985 made inM.C. No. 15 of 1984, on the file of the Civil Judge, Udupi, rejecting the petition. The wife is arrayed as Respondent; but there is no contest in this appeal.2. In their petition the parties averred that their marriage was solemnised on 11-3-1979 in accordance with the Hindu Shastraic rights at Sri Janardhana Devaru Temple at Pangala; that they lived as man and wife at the appellant's house at Krishnarajanagar in Mysore District till 17-9-1979; that they have no issues by the marriage; that thereafter they were not able to live together; and that Respondent has since been staying-away with her parents at Mallur villageof Udupi Taluk. It was further averred that the parties had mutually...
Tag this Judgment!Tara Bai Vs. V.S. Krishnaswamy Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2930
ORDER1. This is a revision by defendant 2 against the order dated 19-3-1982 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, in F.D.P. No. 18/80 (O. S. No. 192/77) dismissing 1. A. Nos. 3 and 5.2. This is an unfortunate litigation between the brother and the sister over a piece of property left by their father.3. One Srinivasarao died leaving behind him his widow defendant I and two daughters defendant 2 Tara Bai and defendant 3 Shanta Bai and a son Krishnaswamy Rao plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit -O. S No. 192/77 for partition and possession of his 5/8th share in the suit property. Later on a joint Memo signed by all the parties and their advocates was filed in the suit on 21-9-1979 stating that the plaintiff Krishnaswamy Rao was entitled to 5/8th share and each of defendants 1 to 3 was entitled to 1/8th share. Accordingly, a preliminary decree in terms of the joint Memo was ordered to be drawn up on 21-9-1979. Thereafter an application for final decree in F.D.P. No. 18/80 was fi...
Tag this Judgment!State Government Employees' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Stat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2425; 1985(2)KarLJ300
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. Two reliefs are claimed in this petition. A Writ of Certiorari quashing the order Annexure-F dated 10-10-1984 of the State Government in the Housing and Urban Development Department and secondly, a Writ of Mandamus for a direction to the State Government (1st respondent) to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment to it of the vacant land mentioned in the petition.2. The petitioner is a Housing Co-operative Society formed under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, having its headquarters at Hubli. It claims a membership of more than 1000 persons, all Government employees, and is said to have been formed with the object of providing house sites to them who, according to the Society, are persons belonging to the weaker sections, being members of low income group.3. A vast extent of urban land including Sy. Nos. 43/1 and 43/2 of village Lakmanahalli, 28/2, 82/1, 84/2 and 24 of village Krishnapur and Sy. No. 157/1+2/1 of village Ayodhya lying within the urban...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Mayya Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2183
ORDERVenkatesh, J.1. An order dated 19-1-1985 of the District Magistrate, Dakshina Kannada, exercising his powers under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code is called in question in this Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code).2. By that order the learned District Magistrate has directed this petitioner to stop immediately the stone quarrying operation which was being done by him in Sl. No. 129/1B and perhaps in the adjoining lands in the village of Kallamundakar of Karkala Taluk and has called upon him to show cause within 10 days from the date of the order as to why that order should not be made absolute.3. It is mentioned in the order that that direction is given by him under Section 133(l)(b) & (c) of the Code.3(a). Granite/rock is a mineral and to quarry the same on a commercial scale licence from the State Government is required. Under a licence obtained from the Director of Mines the petitioner has been carrying on quarryingoperations in ...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva Rao Vs. Cecilia Pereira
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2304; 1987(1)KarLJ182
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. The short question, which arises for decision in this Revision Petition, is whether the prohibition under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') imposed on a Court that no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made in favor of the landlord against the tenant, prohibits such Court from executing its order or decree made to the same effect and became final,before coming into force of that provision respecting the area where the premises is situated.2. The material facts, which have formed the basis for the petitioners raising the above question for the first time in this Court, are :As far back as in the year 1962, Respondents 1 to 6 instituted in the Court of Munsiff at Mangalore, a suit for recovery of possession of a parcel of non-agricultural land from the petitioners, who were tenants thereof. A decree for recovery of possession was ultimately made in that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »