Karnataka Court July 1985 Judgments
M.G. Brothers Vs. M.A. Nagaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3474
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a tenant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 22-6-1985 made by the District Judge, Mandya, in C.R.P.No. 8 of 1985 on this file. By the said order he dismissed the revision of the tenant following a Division Bench ruling in the case of Medical Research Laboratory Private Ltd. -vs- K.C. Ajith : AIR1985Kant95 . Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has preferred this revision.2. What the Division Bench of this Court has ruled aad what the District Judge has done is to hold that a tenant cannot prosecute a revision petition unless on the date of the petition, he has paid or deposited all arrears of rent law-fully due to the landlord. Sri Rangaraju, Learned Counsel for the tenant, strenuously contended that on the date of hearing of the revision petition, there were no arrears of rent due and payable and therefore the revision petition was not liable for dismissal, more so when the same has been admitted and ...
Tag this Judgment!U.N. Sharma Vs. Puttegowda and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant99
1. This is a plaintiffs appeal against the order dated 26-3-1985, passed by the Civil Judge, Ramanagaram, in O.S. No. 63/82 dismissing I. A. V. filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C. P. 2. According to the plaintiff ' the defendant 1 and 2, who are the owners of the suit lands, agreed to sell the suit lands to him for Rs. 21,000/- and received Rs. 15,0007- on 1-7-1982 and executed the agreement of sale. According to the plaintiff, defendants-1 and 2 put the plaintiff, on possession of the lands on 1-7-1982 itself. He claims that he has been in possession of the lands ever since he has been put in possession of the property on 1-7-1982. According to him, defendants 1 and 2 started interferring with his possession. Hence, he filed O.S. No. 63/82, for a permanent injunction. Along with the suit, he filed I. A. I. under Order 39 Rules-1 and 2 of C. P. C. praying to restrain defendants-1 and 2 from interfering with his peaceful possession of the property pending disposal ...
Tag this Judgment!Sharma Vs. Puttegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR171
KULKARNI, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the order dated 26-3-1985 passed by the Civil Judge, Ramanagaram, in O.S. No. 63/82 dismissing I.A.V. filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C.2. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2, who are the owners of the suit lands, agreed to sell the suit lands to him for Rs. 21.000/- and received Rs. 15,000/- on 1-7-1982 and executed the agreement of sale. According to the plaintiff, defendants-1 and 2 put the plaintiff in possession of the lands on 1-7-1982 itself. He claims that he has been in possession of the lands ever since he has been put in possession of the property on 1-7-1982. According to him, defendants 1 and 2 started interfering with his possession. Hence, he filed O.S.No. 63/82, for a permanent injunction. Along with the suit, he filed I.A.I. under Order 39 Rules-1 and 2 of C.P.C. praying to restrain defendants-1 and 2 from interfering with his peaceful possession of the property pending dispos...
Tag this Judgment!Prakashrao K. Vaidya Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1606
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for issue of a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to forbear from interfering in the crushing operations being carried on by the petitioners by bullock drawn crashers and further to release the parts of crushers seized from them.2. By an interim order dated 9-12-1981, the respondents were directed to return the seized parts of crushers. Accordingly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the seized parts of crushers have been returned to them. That interim order need not be disturbed. Accordingly, it is affirmed by this final order and it shall form part of this order.3. The petitioners are the growers of sugarcane. The lands in which they grow sugarcane are situated within the area reserved for the Kampli Co operative Sugar Factory. The contention of the petitioners is that under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and Karnataka Lic...
Tag this Judgment!Prime Publicity Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1610
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In all these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the communication dated 3-5-1985 issued by the 2nd respondent informing the petitioners that the bids offered by them in respect of the various sites in the auction conducted on 15th and 16th April 1985 are not approved by the competent authority. They have also prayed for a declaration that the highest bids offered by them are final and conclusive and further to quash the notice dated 2-5-1985 issued by the 2nd respondent for holding re-auction of the sites in question on 23-5-1985. There is a further prayer made in these Petitions to direct the 2nd respondent to forbear from holding the re auction as notified under Annexure-D.2. As far as the last prayer is concerned, it does not survive because the re-auction has taken place. The petitioners are the highest bidders in the re auction. The proceeding relating to confirmation or otherwise of the highest ...
Tag this Judgment!Mudkappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3275; 1986(1)KarLJ51
ORDERKudoor, J.1. This Criminal Revision one under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) is directed against the judgment and order dated 9-4-1984 passed by the Addl. J.M.F.C, Koppal, in C.C. No. 470/82 acquitting the 2nd respondent accused, of the offences under Section 323 I.P.C. and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').2. The matter arises in this way :The petitioner (who will be referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint before C.P.I., Koppal against the*Cr. R.P. 298 of 1984 dated 3rd July 1985.2nd respondent (who will be referred to as the accused) alleging that the accused had committed offences under Section 323 I.P.C. and Section 7(1)(d) of the Act. The C.P.I., after investigation, placed a charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences. The case was taken on file by the J.M.F.C., Koppal, in C.C. No. 128/82. The case was then transferred to the Addl. J.M.F.C, Koppal in whi...
Tag this Judgment!Chikkamariamma Vs. Dr. Anantharamasingh
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR3281
ORDERKudoor, J.1. This Criminal Petition one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) is directed against the order dated 10-10-1984 in C.C. No. 800/84 (C.R. No. 37/84) passed by the Munsiff & JMFC, Chintamani, directing issue of process to the petitioners who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offences under Sections 43(5) and (6) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and also for an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. against the 2nd petitioner.2. The matter arises in this way :The respondent (who will be referred to as the complainant) presented a private complaint against the petitioners (who will be referred to as the accused). The Magistrate, following the procedure laid down in Chapter XV of the Code, directed issue of process against the accused as stated above. It is the correctness of this order that is sought to be challenged in this Criminal Petition, by the accused.3. This petition may be disposed of on a short point. The Trial Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Aravinda Mallarao Patankar Vs. Karigouda Bannappa Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2897
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is a tenant's Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. The Respondent, who is the landlord, moved the Munsiff at Dharwar for eviction of the tenant from thePetition premises on the ground that it was required for him for his bona fide use and occupation. The tenant is in occupation of two rooms forming a tenant in a composite house where another tenant is also living. The Respondent/landlord has purchased the premises from the previous owner. The tenant resisted the prayer in the petition before the Munsiff on the ground that the requirement was not genuine ; that the petitioner was working at Bangalore and therefore he would not be requiring the residence of his own.2. On the evidence led, the Munsiff held in favour of the tenant. Against that the landlord preferred a RevisionPetition before the District Judge, Dharwar. In the course of the proceedings before the District Judge, he also produced additional documents such as the order of transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Bomma Kom Narayan Naik Vs. Bomma Kom Narayan Naik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4038
ORDERKudoor, J.1. The petitioners in this Criminal Petition were the members of the second party and the 1st respondent was the member of the first party in the proceedings No. MAG 11 SR. 211 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kumta, a proceeding initiated in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the 'Code').2. The matter arises in this way :Petitioner-1 is the second wife of late Narayan Naik and petitioner-2 is her son. Respondent-1 is the first wife of late Narayan Naik but she has chosen to live separately from her husband since prior to 1938-39 She had filed the suit O.S.No. 186/1939 against her husband in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Karwar, Claiming maintenance which ended in a compromise decree Since then she was residing in Bhaskod and her husband was living in Shetgeri and married the first petitioner in about 1942 and since then they were living together. In addition to petitioner-2, they have a daughter by nam...
Tag this Judgment!Sadananda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2813
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-1-1984 passed by the Sessions Judge of Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in Cr. A. No. 63/83 confirming the order passed by the J.M.F.C. III Court, Mangalore, in M.C. No. 13/83 dated 28-10-1983 by which the petitioner herein was directed to pay the entire sum of Rs. 2,000/- covered under the bond executed by him as penalty. 2. The matter arises in this way : The accused in C.C. No. 7164/81 appeared before the Court of the J.M.F.C. III Court, Mangalore, in pursuance of the summons issued to him, on 23-2-1982. The accused was enlarged on self-bond of Rs. 2,000/- on the condition that he should give solvent surety on the next date of hearing. The accused remained absent on 8-3-1982, but his presence was exempted on an application filed on his behalf. Thereafter, the case stood adjourned to 15-3-1982 on which date the accused remained absent and N.B.W. was issued to him. On 25-3-1982 the Counsel for the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »