Karnataka Court November 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.
Sri Krishna Rajendra Mills Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. New India Ass ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1986
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas266(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantraj Urs, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal directed against the judgment and decree in Original Suit NO. 468 of 1973 on the file of the then First Addl. Civil Judge, Banglore City. The judgment and decree is dated August 30, 1975.2. The following few facts are necessary to be stated for the purpose of a just disposal of the appeal.3. The plaintiff is a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, Its offices and branches are located in Mysore City. One such branch is located on what is know as the 100 Feet Road in Rajendranagar in Mysore City. It appears that on January 29, 1968, there was some kind of riot or civil commotion, as a result of which the branch shop where cloth and other textiles were sold by the plaintiff-co operative society were burgled by breaking open of the door of the shop by some miscreants. The watchman of the neighbouring premises i. e., Graduates Co-operative Society, who has gone to the premises of the p...
State of Karnataka Vs. Mehaboob and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4150
M.S. Patil, J.1. The Sessions Judge, Tumkur, having acquitted the accused-respondents 1 to 5 of the charge of the offences of abduction, rape and robbery, punishable under Ss. 366, 376 & 395 IPC, the State has filed this appeal. 2. The facts of the case have been set out elaborately and in more detail in the judgment under appeal passed by the Sessions Judge. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution, as tried to be made out at the trial from the mouth of the witnesses examined at the trial, may however be stated as follows : PW-1 Usha is the prosecutrix and the complainant in the case. She having been married to one Pooja Venkatesh, as employee working in Indian Telephone Industries at Bangalore, was residing with him at Bangalore PW-7 Ramaiah being her father and an employee in the office of Karnataka Electricity Board at Tumkur, while working as a lineman, was residing in K.E.B. quarters allotted to him at Tumkur. He was however not keeping good health. PW-1 Usha was therefore goi...
Pinjaru ShahabuddIn Saheb Vs. Soni Hiralal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR159
ORDERHakeem, J. 1. This application is filed by the landlord to recall the order dated 20-6-1986 granting the tenant one year's time to vacate the premises, on the ground that before communication of the said order to the Court, possession had been delivered to him in execution of the eviction order.2. In order to appreciate the point raised in this matter, it is necessary to mention certain material facts. The landlord's petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act was allowed by the trial Court. While confirming the said order in revision, the learned District Judge by his order dated 19th September 1985, granted the tenant 9 months time to vacate the premises. Being aggrieved by the said order the tenant filed the above Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which ultimately came up for admission on 20th June 1986, after notice to the learned Advocate for the landlord. While rejecting the C.R.P. the tenant was granted furthe...
Jagalur Nayakara Sangha Vs. Government of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR762
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. If pursuit of knowledge and eradication of mass illiteracy is the motto of establishing a school in a developing nation, like ours, this petition must fail.2. Petitioner is a registered society formed by members of scheduled tribe, called 'Nayaka'. After persuasion and concerted efforts, which included filing of W.P. 17969 of 1980 it succeeded in securing a permission to start a High School in Hiremallanahole ; this is evidenced by Government Order dated 31-7-1984 (Annexure-D). It appears Government had decided to establish a Government High School in the same place, Hiremallanahole. However, on 2-8-1984, the authorities revoked their decision and accordingly Annexure 'E' was issued on that date. Consequential orders were issued as per Annexures 'F' and 'G'. It appears notwithstanding the decision of cancellation, the authorities had started the High School section and students were admitted. Therefore by Annexure 'G', instructions were issued to close down the...
Narunnisa Vs. Shek Abdul Hamid
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-07-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant222; ILR1986KAR4207; 1987(1)KarLJ143
Murlidher Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for partition in O.S. No. 58 of 1975, on the file of the Civil Judge, Puttur (D.K.) R.F.A. No. 37/1976 is filed by the fifth defendant and R.F.A. No. 72/1976 is filed by the first defendant. These appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. Facts, in brief are, S. K. Abbas (Plaintiff) filed a suit for partition claiming 2/12th share in properties in Schedules A and B, annexed to the plaint. Properties in 'A' schedule are immoveable properties; properties in 'B' schedule are moveables like utensils, he-buffaloes, bullocks etc. Relationship between the plaintiff and defendants is not in dispute. Defendants 1, 2, 4 and 6 are plaintiff's brothers and defendants 3 and 5 are his sisters. Shaik Abdul Gani, father of plaintiff and defendants, died on 29th Nov., 1973. On the basis of admitted relationship plaintiff claimed 2/12th share, which share, each of the sons of Shaik Abdul Ghani would be entitled to in law; defendants 3 an...
S.M. Pattanaik Vs. Secretary to Government of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3954; (1987)IILLJ113Kant
ORDER1. In this Writ Petition in which the petitioner, a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS for short), has questioned the constitutional validity of Clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Rule 5(a) of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954, ('the Rules' for short), the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether on the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to retain or entertain petitions presented under that Article before it, challenging the constitutional validity of any law regulating recruitment and conditions of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and decide such petitions stood excluded and got vested in the Central Administrative Tribunal ?' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : ...
Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Geetha and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1986
Reported in: II(1987)ACC1; AIR1989Kant104
Venkatachalaiah, J.1. This appeal by the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., is directed against the Award dt. 20-31-1986 made in M.V.C. No. 180/83 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,37,800/- to the dependants of the deceased person in a fatal accident -action.Respondent - claimants are the widow and minor children of a certain Ravindra, an employee of the appellant-Corporation. On 20-4-1983, Ravindra, in the course of the employment, was travelling in appellants van (MYE-5007) to Bangalore. At about 5-00 a. m., when the vehicle was approaching the outskirts of Nelamangala Town, the van went off the road and hit a road-side tree. Ravindra sustained severe injuries to which he succumbed. His widow and children brought a claim before the Tribunal.2. On a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was attributable to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the van....
Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Geetha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR142
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal by the Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd., is directed against the Award dated 26-3-1986 made in M.V.C. No. 180/83 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Bangalore, Rural District, Bangalore, awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,37,800/- to the dependants of the deceased person in a fatal-accident-action.Respondent-claimants are the widow and minor children of a certain Ravindra, an employee of the Appellant-Corporation. On 20-4-1983, Ravindra, in the course of his employment, was travelling in appellant's van (MYE 5007) to Bangalore. At about 5-00 a.m. when the vehicle was approaching the outskirts of Nelamangala Town, the van went-off the road and hit a road-side tree. Ravindra sustained severe injuries to which he succumbed. His widow and children brought a claim before the Tribunal.2. On a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was attributable to the actionable-negligence on the part of the driver of the va...
Mahadev Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR139
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.The petitioner claims to be a tenant of S. No. 63/1 and 63/5 of Patgundi village in Gokak Taluk. He has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Land Tribunal, Gokak, to hear and dispose of his application said to have been filed in Form No. 7. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has stated that he sent the application in Form No. 7 under certificate of posting and a true copy of the Certificate of posting is produced as Annexure-A, which shows that the unregistered article has been posted on 23-7-1978. What that articles is any body's guess. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of his having sent form No. 7 on 23-7-1978 as per Annexure A, the Tribunal has cot held any enquiry and has not taken any action. Rule 40 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, prescribes the mode of presentation of the application before the Land Tribunal and any other authority under the Act. The said Rule reads thus :-'40. Appeals and applications (1) Every appeal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›