Karnataka Court December 1986 Judgments
Leelavathi Alias Ranjan Bai Vs. Sharada
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-05-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR469; 1987(1)KarLJ225
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Decree of eviction passed against deceased father of respondents in R.C. O.P. No. 9 of 1964 on the file of theMunsiff, Mangalore was set aside in Appeal No. 56 of 1967 by District Court. Mangalore, but, restored in C.R.P. No. 1879 of 1968 by this Court. Operative portion of the order of Civil Revision Petition reads thus :'The respondents are granted four months' time from to-day to vacate their respective premises The petitioner shall start demolishing the building for the purpose of reconstruction within one month from the date she actually enters into vacant possession of the schedule premises.'Possession has been delivered on 13-2-1970.2. Thereafter, legal notices have been exchanged; tenants demanding possession, owner denying right of restoration. Even contempt proceedings have been initiated - in CCC 102 of 1973 filed by some other tenant, first petitioner gave an undertaking to construct ground floor of new building in T.S. No. 186 of 1982 of 13th Cro...
Tag this Judgment!Venkangouda Vs. Siddappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR297
ORDERPatil, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Sessions Judge, whereby he has set aside the order passed by the JMFC directing to prosecute the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 211 IPC.2. The respondent had filed a private complaint against the petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 & 506 R/W 34 IPC. The case ended in acquittal. During the course of the Judgment, the Magistrate observed that the respondent had filed a false complaint. He however did not think of taking cognizance of any such offence as provided under Section 344 Cr P.C. or make any complaint. The petitioner however thought of prosecuting the respondent and made an application as provided under Section 340 Cr.P.C. with a request to prosecute the respondent. The Magistrate, on some inquiry, accepted the application and made the order in these terms :'Thus viewed in any angle in d...
Tag this Judgment!iswarappa Magundappa Aribenchi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR676
ORDERPatil, J.1. A question of law common to all these cases arises for decision. Therefore they are heard together and proposed to be disposed of by common order.2. AH the three cases arise from Ramdurg Police Station. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is one punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act by reason of the contravention of Clauses of the Edible Oil Dealers Licencing Order 1977. In one case, it is said, the accused petitioner was carrying on business without licence. In the other cases, the accused-petitioners had not complied with the conditions of the licence. The alleged offence is said to have come to the notice on 5-8-1983. All the three accused, it is not disputed, were also arrested on the same day and were released on bail. Offences being triable as summons case by a Special Judge as provided under Section 12AA(1)(f) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, the investigation had to be completed and cha...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Halappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1986
Reported in: I(1987)ACC408; AIR1987Kant261; ILR1987KAR329; 1987(1)KarLJ88
1. This appeal is by the Karnataka Electricity Board (for short the 'Board'). It is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd July, 1986 in O. S. No. 19 of 1983 on the file of the Civil Judge, Gadag. 2. Respondent Halappa, is a transport carrier. He was carrying thirty-two docras of cotton belonging to various cotton growers from Hebbal in Shirahatti taluk to Hubli Market -on 8-4-1981. His vehicle had the registration mark MYW 8383. The goods belonged to persons who were named in Annexure to the Plaint at Schedule-A. While thirty-two docras of cotton lint was thus being carried on the way, at Shigli Toll Naka in Lakshmeshwar Town a fire accident took place due to the short circuit by touching the over-head electric wire lines belonging to the Board. (First defendant is the Board; 2nd defendant is the Chief Engineer of the Board and the 3rd defendant is the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board, Laxmeshwar, Taluka Shirahatti, District Dharwad). Plaintiff pleaded that the ov...
Tag this Judgment!Annasaheb Ramachandra Patil Vs. Ramachandra Sataba Mane Wakerekar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR979
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by judgment debtor-1 against the order dated 17-1-1983 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Chikodi, in E.P. No. 79 of 1980, over-ruling the objections of the judgment debtors.2. The decree holders obtained a decree against the judgment debtors in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division Kolhapur, in Civil Suit No. 333/68. That decree was transferred to the Court of the Munsiff, Chikodi, for execution in 1980 and it was numbered as E.P. No. 79 of 1980.3. The judgment debtors raised a contention that they were debtors within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, and that the amount claimed in the execution stood wiped out.4. The Court below over-ruled the objections of the judgment debtors. Hence the revision.5. Section 3 of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1980, reads as :--'Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any contract or instrument having force by virtue of any law or otherwise and save...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›