Karnataka Court July 1985 Judgments
T.K. Bose Vs. Sree Venkatesha Electrical Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-15-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3189; 1985(2)KarLJ333
Kudoor, J.1. R.F.A. No. 370/1982 is against the decree in O. S. No. 10462/1980 and R.F.A. No. 371/1982 is against the decree in O.S. No. 5673/1980 of even date 31-10-1982 arising out of a common judgment passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appellant in both the appeals is one T.K. Bose, who isthe sole defendant in O.S. No. 10462/1980 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5673/1980.2. O.S. No. 5673/1980 is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff continues to be the Director and Chairman of the 1st defendant- . Sree Venkatesha Electrical Industries (Private) Limited- (for short the 'Company'), that the office of the Directorship of the Company held by the plaintiff has not fallen vacant under clause (i) of sub-section (l) of Section 283 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act'), that the proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company held on 24-10-1980 are null and void, that defendant-3 was not validly appointed as a Director of the Company...
Tag this Judgment!A.S.N. Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3158; (1986)IILLJ162Kant
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Rule. 2. The chequered career of Petitioner in service depicts his adventurous spirit. He having joined service as Assistant Surgeon Gr. II, on 28th May, 1958 in Health and Family Welfare Department of Karnataka, became an Associate Professor; went for higher studies to U.K. between 13th September, 1959 to 31st May, 1965; served in army from 16th January, 1967 to 23rd May, 1969; and in particular, in field service from 16th June, 1967 to 23rd May, 1969; went for Surgical studies to U.S.A. from 12th October, 1971 to 28th July, 1975. On return, worked as Associate Professor in different institutions and later on has opted for voluntary retirement. He claimed that period of service rendered in army should be converted into double the service for purpose of reckoning qualifying service in order to confer pensionary benefits as per Government Order No. GAD (S-) 84 SRR 63, dated 21st August, 1963; and Official Memorandum No. PLM 692 MMC 65, dated 23rd September, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Panchaksharappa Vs. Vijayakumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2904
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The Revision Petitioner in this Court under Section 115 C.P.C., is a tenant. Sometime when he acquired lease of the building in question, he was paying Rs. 75/- as rent. Thereafter, it is alleged that the landlord demandedRs.175/-per mensem as rent which he paid. That enhancement of rent was paid from 1974. In 1979, the landlord-respondent in this proceedings filed eviction petition HRC No. 55/79 in the Court of the Munsiff, at Davanagere seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises for his own use and occupation, the ground available to the land-lord under clause (h) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was made under Section 29(1) of the Act by the landlord seeking payment of arrears of rent from the tenant before he proceeded to contest the eviction petition. In accordance with Section 29 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Hanuman Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Transport Appellate Trib ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Kant29; 1985(1)KarLJ139
ORDER1. The petitioner is the same in both the petitions. In these petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dt. 29th Mar., 1984, passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as KSTAT) Jn Appeals Nos. 151/82, 153/82, 1140/81, 25/82 and 227/82, produced as Annexure-K.2. The facts necessary to consider the contentions urged on both the sides are not in dispute and the same are as follows:On 11-5-1981 the petitioner filed an application for grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Chakranagar to Mangalore via Masthikatte, Balebele, Siddapur, Amavase-bail, Coondapur and Udupi and back (one round trip). This application was registered at subject matter No. 161/81-82. On 16-& 1981 the fourth respondent also filed an application for grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Chakranagar to Mangalore via Mundally, Mastikatte, Hulikal, Balabele, Siddapur, Varahi (IP), Siddapur, Kandlur, ...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Credit and Development Syndicate Vs. B. Suryanarayana Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant98; ILR1986KAR886
1. This is a defendant's appeal against the order dated 25-3-1985 passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O.S.99 of 1985, granting temporary injunction with notice. 2. The learned counsel Sri Thimmappaiah for Sri Tukararn S. Pai for the appellant, made grievance that initially the Court had issued only emergent notice and thereafter all of a sudden on 25-3-1985 it had granted temporary injunction. 3. Order 39 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure are amended. Order 39 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as : - 'The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party: Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite. party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction woul...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Bhandary Vs. V.S.J. Lobo
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant241; ILR1986KAR929
ORDER1. This is a tenant's revision petition against the order of the learned District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, dated 17-1-1985 made in C.R.P. No. 73/83. That Revision before the District Judge was filed against the order of the learned Munsiff, Mangalore, in H.R.C. No. 96/74, on his file, filed by the landlord-respondent under S. 21(l)(a) and (c) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') ordering eviction of the tenant petitioner on the ground that he had erected a permanent structure in the leased premises without the written consent of the landlord as required by law. The District Judge has confirmed it. Therefore, the present Revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C.2. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under S. 115 C.P.C., will not act as a Court of Appeal or sift through the material that is in evidence once over again and come to a different conclusion. Therefore, on that account alone this Court must refuse to exercise its j...
Tag this Judgment!Annappa Manjappa Gudigar Vs. Amarnath Vishwanath Dhakappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2900
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This Revision raises a very interesting question of law though it is a short one. The facts leading to the Revision Petition under Section 115 C.P.C., may be briefly stated and they are as follows :2. The petitioner in this Court is the landlord. He filed an eviction Petition in H.R.C. 4/77 in the Court ofAdditional Munsiff, Sirsi, seeking eviction of the Respondent-tenant from the residential premises occupied by him which the landlord owned. The landlord was a Bank employee who was due to retire in 1980. In order to settle down at Sirsi, his native place, he initiated eviction proceedings in 1977 itself stating the fact that he required the premisesbona fide for his use and occupation soon after his retirement. The other ground urged by the landlord was that the tenant had sublet the premises. The tenant resisted the eviction Petition on the ground that the requirement of the landlord was not genuine and that he had not sublet the premises. On such plea...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Ganapathy Vs. New Premier Chemical Industries (P) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3635; 1986(1)KarLJ312
ORDERKulkarni, J.1.This is a revision by the judgment-debtor against the order dated 2-7-1982 passed by the Additional Munsiff, Virajpet, in Execution No. 94 of 1981, rejecting theapplication of the judgment-debtor.2. Before ordering the issue of warrant for arrest, it is desirable to hold an enquiry as to whether the judgment-debtor has got the means to pay the decretal amount and whether he is willfully avoiding to pay the same. This is the view taken by this Court in Puttaramaiah -v.- Hajee Ibrahim Essac, 1985 Mys. L.J. 813. This Court has held as - 'We may not be understood to say that in every case the Executing Court should postpone inquiry about the requirements of Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure till the stage of detention is arrived at. In appropriate cases, the Executing Court may combine the relevant inquires relating to arrest with that of detention.'This is also the view taken in In Re. Kaiumari Venkatarathnam A.I.R. 1948 Madras, 9 and T. Kunhiraman -v.- Pootheri...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Vs. Zempanna Gangappa Sambanni
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3637
ORDERKulkarni, J.1.This is a revision by the obstructer Arjun s/o. Sangappa Gunnapur against the order dated 5-4-82 passed by the Civil Judge, Bijapur, in Ex. Appeal No. 1/81 reversing the order dated 6-4-81 passed by the Munsiff, Bijapur Ex.case No. 57/79.2. The respondents in the present revision obtained an order of eviction under Section 21(1)(j) in HRC 8/73 against the obstruotor's (revision petitioner's) father on 23-3-1977. The revision by the father of the obstructer was dismissed on 17-7-79. The obstructer's father approached this Court with CRP 301/78 and it was also dismissed on 8-1-79. The respondents-landlords thereafter sued out the execution in Ex. Case No. 57/79 against the revision petitioner's father who had suffered an order of eviction in the said case. During the pendency of the execution, the present revision petitioner who is the son of the JDR. against whom the order of eviction was passed, has taken up a contention that he is a tenant directly under the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Hanuman Transport Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. S.T.A.T.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4132
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. The petitioner is the same in both the Petitions. In these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 29th March, 1984, passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as KSTAT) in Appeal Nos. 151/82, 153/82. 1140/81, 25/82 and 227/82, produced as Annexure-K.2. The facts necessary to consider the contentions urged on both the sides are not in dispute and the same are as follows.3. On 11-5-1981 the petitioner filed au application for grant of a stage carnage permit on the route Chakranagar to Mangalore via Masthikatte, Balebele, Siddapur,Amavasebai, Coondapur and Udupi and back (one round trip). This application was registered at subject matter No. 161/81-82. On 16-6-1981 the fourth respondent also filed an application for grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Chakranagar to Mangalore via Mundally, Mastikatte, Huhkal, Balabele, Siddapur, Varahi (IP),Sidd...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »