Karnataka Court July 1985 Judgments

State Bank of Mysore Vs. G.P. Thulasi Bai

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR2976

ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J.1. The dispute in this appeal relates only to the rate of interest charged from the date of suit till the date ofrealisation on a loan secured by mortgaging the immoveable property of the first Respondent. The contractual rate of interest is 2.5% above the Reserve Bank rate of interest subject to a minimum of 14%. The Trial Judge has awarded 6% interest from the date of suit till realisation of the decretal dues.2. Mr. C. B. Srinivasan, Counsel for the appellant, passionately pleaded that the Court below ought to have granted the contractual rate of interest from the date of suit till realisation as required under Order 34 Rule 11 CPC and ought not to have reduced the rate to 6%.3. This contention would have been accepted if the Trial Court could not call into aid the provisions of Section 34 in a case governed by Order 34 Rule 11. The scope of the interaction of Section 34 and Order 34 R.11wasconsidered by the Supreme Court in Soli Pestonji Majoo v.Gangadhar ...

JainaullalbIn Saheb Vs. Dhanyakumaraiya

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR937

ORDER 6 Rule 1 -- Adequacy of pleading -- Liberal approach -- Unless prejudice caused demonstrated, irregularities not to be taken note of.This Court time and again has pointed out that bald pleadings which would not give adequate opportunity to the defendant or the opposite party to meet the case of the plaintiff or the petitioner should result in the prayer in the petition or the plaint being denied. The Courts have been liberal in considering the pleadings for a number of reasons some of which are historic .... It is not enough to contend that there is inadequacy of pleading. Much will depend on how the defendant understood the pleading and in what circumstances the parties went to trial. Unless the prejudice caused is demonstrated, irregularities cannot be taken note of....

N.A.K. Pathan Vs. Julekhabi Pathan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR2413

Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal by the employer is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-9-1983, made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hubli, in WCA/ SR. 44/1982, on his file, awarding a compensation of Rs. 18,000/- to the mother of the deceased-workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (shortly called the 'Act'), The Commissioner also granted, under Section 4A(3) of the Act interest at 6 per cent per annum and a penalty of 10% of the amount awarded.In this appeal appellant does not question the quantification of the compensation. What is, however, assailed is the award of interest and penalty. Claimant-1st respondent has preferred cross-objections seeking enhancement of the penalty. There having been some delay in filing the cross-objections the claimant has filed I.A.I for condonation of that delay. In the circumstances stated, we allow I.A.I. and condone the delay in the filing of the cross-objections.2. The proceedings arose in the context of th...

Principal Vs. J. Mary Susheela

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR891

Kulkarni, J.1. Shri Datar for Shri Srinivasa Anand for the appellant and Sri Vijay for Respondent-1 and Shri Jagannatha Rao for Respondent-2 submitted that the appeal itself may be heard finally on merits. Accordingly, the appeal is heard on merits.2. This is an appeal by defendant 2 against the order dated 9-7-1985 passed by the X Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in Original Suit No. 10456 of 1985 allowing I.A. No. 1 and dismissing I.A.No. III and making the temporary injunction absolute.3. The plaintiff's case is as under :Defendant-1 is the Management of the Goodwill Girls' High School and defendant-2 is the Principal of the said School. The said High School is an aided institution and is receiving grant from the Government. This is an institution run by the Church of South India, Karnataka Central Diocese.In pursuance of the advertisement calling for applications for the post of Assistant Teacher for Mathematics, the plaintiff also had applied. She was interviewed by the Com...

Gowramma Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3111

ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Rights of grantee (not impleaded as party in this Writ Petition) is defeasible subject to fulfilment of terms and conditions on which grant is made. Undisputedly grant is on 3-11-1961 and alienation in favour of petitioner is on 10-3-1963. Action taken for resumption by Government for breach of conditions imposed is questioned in this Writ Petition.2. Section 100 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 declares that a sale of 'granted land through process of Court without obtaining sanction of prescribed authority asnull and void. Section 104 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act which reads thus:Summary eviction of person unauthorisedly occupying land -Notwithstanding anything contained in the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act,1961 (Karnataka Act 3 of 1962) any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land which is not transferable by virtue of any condition lawfully annexed to the tenure under the provisions of...

Gopal Prabhu Vs. Mark Aloysius Pereira

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR924

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is sub-tenant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order of the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, dated 17-12-1984 made in C.R.P. No. 164 of 1983 on his file. That matter arose before the District Judge on account of the order made by the Munsiff in H.RC. No. 68 of 1979 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff, Mangalore. That eviction proceeding was initiated in that Court at the instance of Respondents 1 and 2 herein, the landlords who were the purchasers of the Petition premises. They sued for eviction of the tenant and the sub-tenant on the ground that the premises were required for bona fide use and occupation ; that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent despite a written demand and that the tenant had committed breach by sub-leasing the premises in question without the consent of the landlords. The Munsiff found in favour of the landlords and allowed the Petition. That is why t...

Lingamma Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1985KAR3662; 1986(1)KarLJ113

ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1.This is owners petition, challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, Kanakapura,dated 12-11-1984 (Annexure'A'). First petitioner is the wife of second petitioner. Respondent-3 is second petitioner's brother. This relationship is not disputed.2. In retrospect, few facts which necessitate reference are as follows:While the relationship, between the petitioners and respondent-3, is as stated above, the family genealogy is as follows : Mariligegowda | _____________|___________________________ | | | | C.M. Lingegowda C.M. Marigowda Hoslingegowda Basave gowda (Respondent-3) (Petitioner-2) gowda = Lingamma (wife) (Petitioner-1)3. In a family partition, dated 3-6-1963, the lands in dispute fell to the share of petitioner-2 Hosalingegowda. It is admitted, Hosalingegowda is mentally unsound; there is enough material to support this fact. Respondent's Counsel also did not dispute this fact.4. C. M. Lingegowda, brother of first petitioner, filed Form No. 7 claiming occupan...

Gandhi Chailshtori Mohmood Vs. Vice Chancellor Karnataka University

Court: Karnataka

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These six petitioners are Iranian citizens who were at the relevant time studying in Colleges affiliated to the Karnataka University, Dharwar. At the supplementary examinations held by that University for Science students in the month of November, 1985, the petitioners are said to have committed malpractices at the examinations, as a result of which, they were subjected to an enquiry by the Malpractices Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). It appears that the Committee submitted a report to the Vice Chancellor who had appointed that Committee and he in turn accepted the report of the Committee and issued an order thereafter imposing the punishment on the students of being debarred from taking five consecutive examinations of the University from the date of the order as well as cancelling their performance at the relevant examination in which they are said to have committed Malpractices. These facts are not in dispute.2. Immediately on rec...

Subbanna Vs. Mudugodu Group Panchayat

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR888

ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a plaintiffs, revision against the order dated 9-11-1982 passed by the Munsiff, Tarikere in O.S. 47 of 1981 ordering issue No. 4 against him.2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and is in possession of the same and that defendant No, 1 had no right, title or interest in the same and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any way with or meddling with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the plaintiff.3. Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit contending that the suit was barred under Section 232(2) of the Karnataka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act, 1959.4. The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that defendants 1 and 2 have been sued in their personal capacity. Defendants 1 and 2 are described as : --(1) Mudugodu Group Panchayat by its Secretary, Mudugodu, Rangenahalli, Tarikere Taluk.(2) Beeranna, S/o. Shankappa, major land-hol...

K. Shambu Vs. K.S.T.A.T.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1986KAR1624

ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 3rd January, 1985, passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the KSTAT) in Revision Petition No. 259/84, produced as Annexure-B. The petitioner has also sought for quashing the resolution passed by the R. T. A., Mangalore, on 21-4-1984, in Subject No. 21/84-85.2. By the aforesaid resolution, the R. T. A. has made a determination under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has held that it is stashed that there exists a permanent need to introduce additional bus service on the route State Bank to Morgansgate (City Rome No. 18). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution, the Petitioner preferred a Revision Petition No. 259/84 before the K.S.T.A.T. on 10-9-1984. the Revision Petition has been dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time. The petitioner f...