Karnataka Court January 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kaduveera Mada Thammadi Vs. G.P. Madathimmadi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1051
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these two Writ Petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments, Bangalore, allowing the revision petitions presented by Respondents 1 and 2 and setting aside the order of me Executive Officer (Deputy Commissioner) in which their right to perform pooja at Mahadeswara swamy Temple, Kollegal Taluk, was set aside.2. The facts of the case in so tar as it is necessary and sufficient tor the disposal of these two Writ Petitions, are as follows :-The petitioner in the first Writ Petition filed an application before respondent 3, the Executive Officer of Sri Mahadeswara swamy Temple, praying for a declaration that he was entitled to perform pooja in the temple for a period of two months in a year. The claim was made on the basis of hereditary archonship. The claim was that originally the right to pooja was secured by one Annasalamma and the family was later divided into three branches and, as a res...
Morzaria Products Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bangalore Telephones and a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Kant96; ILR1986KAR4119
ORDER1. Petitioners assail the order at Annexure 'C' by which Phone No. 24731 is disconnected. Petitioner No. 1 is, a private limited Company and 2nd petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company. Phone No. 24731 is allotted to the first petitioner Company.2. There is another Company by name M/s. International Coach Builder (P) Ltd. The second petitioner and Mr. M.C. Morzaria are the Directors 9f this Company. No phone is allotted to this Company. 3. It is not disputed that the offices of both these companies are located in the same premises namely 225/A, Rajamahal Vilas Extension, Bangalore, and phone No. 24731 is installed in this premises.4. On 30th of May 1985, res.-indent issued a show cause notice to the first petitioner. It states that 'it has come to the notice that phone is being used, by M/s. International Coach Builder (P) Ltd., unauthorisedly; this misuse being by a person other than original hirer, entails disconnection'. Seven days time was stipulated to give reply. O...
Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. Venkatkrishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR570; (1986)ILLJ506Kant
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. These Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions with common questions of law shall stand disposed of by the following order. 2. The facts in outline giving rise to these matters are these : The Karnataka Civil Services (Service & Kannada Language Examinations) Rules, 1974, which came into force with effect from 10th January, 1974, prescribed certain departmental examinations for Government servants. We may, hereinafter, refer to these Rules ad 'KLE Rules'. Rule 3 of the KLE Rules provides for a period of two years for Government servants to pass the examinations prescribed thereunder, but that period was later extended to three years by an amendment. Rule 6 of the KLE Rules provides for grant of additional increment to Government Servants who pass the prescribed examination. The additional increment is liable to be granted in the pay scale admissible to such Government servants. 3. The State has been revising the pay scales of Government servants from time to t...
Shanthamallappa Vs. Madavan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1008
Nesargi, J.1. The plaintiffs who have failed in both the Courts below are the appellants in this appeal. They filed the suit O.S. No. 34 of 1971 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Coorg, Mercara, for declaration that the sale dated 25-4-1962 (evidenced by Ex. D-1) made by one Maribasavegowda in favour of the defendants is not binding on them and for further declaration that they are the owners of the suit lands and for possession. They have also prayed for grant of past and future mesne profits.2. The defendants contested the suit.3. The undisputed and proved facts are that Maribasave gowda and the plaintiffs belong to the same family. Suit for partition in O.S. No. 2 of 1958 in regard to the joint family properties of this family was filed. Compromise decree as per Ex. D-2 dated 31-3-1958 was passed. Suit items were allotted to the share of Maribasavegowda. On 5-7-1960 Maribasavegowda entered into an agreement of said of these suit items in favour of the defendants by executing Exhibit ...
T. Ranganna Vs. Bhagirathi Bai and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Kant256; ILR1986KAR1169
1. This is plaintiff s second appeal arising out of O.S.No. 748 of 1971 filed by him in the Court of the Principal Munsif, Mysore.2. The undisputed facts giving rise to the suit of the plaintiff may be stated as follows. The plaintiff and one Ugrappa were brothers. The property abutting Sayaji Rao Road, Mysore, belongs jointly to them. Ramachandra Rao whose wife and son are the defendants, occupied the entire building as a tenant. The entire building consists of shop portion and residential portion. On 1-51935 partition of the property took place between the plaintiff and Ugrappa Southern half portion was allotted to the share of the Plaintiff. The whole building had only one lavatory and that lavatory is still in existence. That is in the portion that has falle7rto the share of the plaintiff. On 15-9-1931 Ramachandra Rao purchased Ugrappa's share under a registered sale deed Exhibit D-3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No. 498 of 1940-41 praying for eviction of Ramachandra Rao from the proper...
Tahsildar Vs. Yellappa Tippanna Vadawadagi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR882
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the Tahsildar, Basavanabagewadi, Bijapur District, against the order dated 22-2 1984 passed by the Munsiff, Basavanabagewadi. in O.S. No. 105 of 1982 issuing proclamation and arrest warrant against the Tahsildar who was summoned as a witness to produce the document.2. The case was posted on 22-2-1984 for the appearance of the witness who bad been summoned to produce the documents. As can be seen from the order sheet, the witness Tahsildar had taken many adjournments to search for the documents and produce the same. Even on 22-2-1984 the A.G.P. submitted in the Munsiff Court that the witness was searching for the documents and still they wore not available. The Lower Court thought that no representation had been made either by the witness personally or by any other persons. At that stage, the defendant's Counsel Sri M.I.P. appears to have filed an application under Order 16 Rule 10 C.P.G. requesting the Court to issue proclamation and arrest war...
Merry Muttu Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-15-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1259; 1986(2)KarLJ1
ORDERRama Jois. J.1. This Writ Petition is presented by the petitioner praying for quashing the order of the Taluka Magistrate and Tahsildar, Hunsur under the provisions of Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :The 2nd respondent made an application before the Taluka Magistrate Hunsur under Section 4 of the Act stating that the house belonging to her mother had been mortgaged in the year 1951, in favour of the petitioner as security for repayment of debt of Rs. 250/- and that as she was a debtor as defined under the Act she was entitled to a declaration that the debt stood discharged and also for a further direction for re-delivery of possession of the house to her. The Tahsildar granted that application. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner has presented this petition.3. In the course of the order, the Tahsildar stated that the petitioner accepted that there was a mortgage and requested for a month's time to deliver possession. In the Writ ...
Maruthi Enterprises Vs. Muniyanjamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant264
ORDER1. This is a revision by the plaintiffs against the order dated 19-1-1983 passed by the IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 2874 of 1982 rejecting I.A. No. I filed to recall the order dated 1-12-1982.2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit in O. S. No. 2874 of 1982 in the City Civil Court for specific performance of an agreement dated 3-7-1978 and a further agreement dated 19-51979.3. The plaintiffs paid a court-fee of Rs. 100/- on 12-4-1982 when the suit was filed. The office put up a note dated 2-6-1982 to the effect that the plaintiffs had not paid the court-fee and that the court-fee paid was deficit. The matter was posted before the Court on 1-10-1982 for judicial determination. It was adjourned to 8-10-1982. On 8-10-1982 the court was on leave and hence it was adjourned to 8-11-1982. On 8-11-1982 an application under S. 148 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiffs seeking three months' time to pay the additional court-fee of Rs. 14,900/-. The court passed an ord...
Karim Khan Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR460
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. Orders made by some of the Land Tribunals constituted under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as 'the Principal Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as 'the Principal Act'), have been impugned in these Writ Petitions.2. The order impugned in W.P.F.R. 18102/85 (W.P. 19766/85) (LR) is the one made under Section 48-C of the Principal Act, while the order impugned in W.P.FR. 18065/85 (W.P. 19771/85) (LR) is another, made under Section 67 of that Act. The other orders impugned in the remaining Writ Petitions are those, made under Section 48A of the said Act.3. The Registry of this Court has refused to register the said Writ Petitions. That refusal of the Registry is based on its view that a remedy by way of appeal against each of the impugned orders, when has been made available to a party aggrieved thereby, under the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (here in after referred to as 'the Ordinance'), which has come into fo...
Maruthi Enterprises Vs. Muniyanjamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-13-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR872
ORDER 47 Rule 1 -- Conditions for exercise of power of review -- 'Any other sufficient reason' in Rule 1(c) to be read ejusdem generis with other requirements -- Application under Section 151 for recalling order rejecting plaint for non-payment of court fee not to be treated as application for review.If the review jurisdiction is to be exercised, then the following ingredients must be satisfied : (i) from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge : or(ii) could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made, or(iii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record ; or(iv) for any other sufficient reason ;Unless any one of these ingredients is satisfied, it would not be open for the Court to review the judgment or order passed by it. The words 'any other sufficient reason' mentioned in Order 41 Rule 1(c) CPC will have to be read ejusdem generis wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »