Karnataka Court March 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.
Ashoka Baskar Chittar Vs. Shimoga Housing Co-operative Society
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR220
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.The short question which falls for determination in this petition is. whether the Award of the Arbitrator passed under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, by its order dated 21-12-1984 in Appeal No. 316/83 is liable to be set-aside or that portion of the order which awards interest in excess of 6% on account of the prohibition contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 34 C.P.C. limiting the rate of interest to 6% and not more.2. Briefly, the facts are as under :The Writ Petitioner was a borrower from the first Respondent, Shimoga Housing Co-operative Society. He borrowed the money for the construction of a house. He borrowed the amount in two instalments; Rs 15,000/-and Rs. 4,000/-. He agreed to pay interest at a specified rate and also penal interest in case of default in repayment of the loan instalments. He did not pay any sum. Hence,...
Mohan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1924
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In all these petitions, some of the petitioners are engaged in the wholesale trade in fruits, some in flowers and some in vegetables.2. In all these petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the Notifications dated 24-9-1977, 3-8-1979, 19-12-1985 and the two notifications dated 16-1-1986. In addition to this, in two batches of Writ Petitions filed by Sri B.T. Parthasarathy, Learned Advocate, the notices issued by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Market Committee') produced as Annexure-G and G1, have also been challenged.3(a) The Notification bearing No. RDC 124 MMD 76 dated 24-9-1977 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 6-10-1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'Notification No. I') produced as Annexure-R2, is issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 read with Section 4 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulat...
Haji Abdul Ghanisaheb Vs. Rajan Sharma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2038
ORDERPatil, J.1. In this revision filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act), the legality and correctness of the order of eviction dated 17-6-1983 passed by the Small Cause Judge, Civil Station Bangalore, in HRC. No. 8058 of 1980, on his file, is sought to be challenged.2. A shop premises with a room on reside bearing No. 434 situated in Old Poor House Road, now known as Jumma Masjid Street in Civil Station, Bangalore, more particularly described in the plan annexed with the original petition made for eviction, is the subject matter of dispute.A few facts giving rise to the revision, which are not much in dispute, are as follows :-3. The shop bearing No. 434 and the adjoining shop bearing No. 435 originally belonged to one R. Krishnaswamy of Bombay. They were leased together as a single unit to the petitioner-No. 1, who has been carrying on his business in readymade garments in the name and style as Haji Lalmiyan Saheb & Sons. It being a registered partne...
Malleswaram Co-operative Society Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2329
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. First petitioner is the Malleswaram Co-operative Society Ltd., while the 2nd petitioner is one of its Directors on the Board of Management, What really falls for determination in this Writ Petition is a short question and that is, whether a co-operative society is precluded from being represented in legal proceedings by a person other than the Secretary who is the designated person under one of its bye-laws to sue or to be sued in the name of the society ?2. The facts leading to the case may be briefly stated as follows :--The 3rd respondent herein was an employee of the Co-operation Department of the State of Karnataka. He was for a lime deputed to function as Secretary of the first petitioner co-operative society. In the period he was functioning as such, he claimed certain increase in emoluments said to be payable by the society. Therefore, after his deputation ceased, he raised a dispute which was referred to the 2nd respondent Joint Registrar of Co-o...
Shanta and anr. Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of City of Bangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant48; ILR1986KAR1037
K. Jagannatha Shetty, Actg.C.J. 1. These appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dt. July 7, 1982, dismissing W.Ps. 22142 and 22143 of 1982. Appellant 1 is the owner of the premises bearing No. 2, K.V. Temple Lane, Bangalore53. She has been residing in the said premises for the past 40 years. Appellant 2, since dead, was the owner of premises bearing No. 2/1 in the same locality. His legal representatives have been brought on record and they are prosecuting the appeal. They have also been residing there for quite some time. On the eastern side of the premises belonging to the appellants, there was a house bearing No. 1, K.V. Temple Street. Satyanarayana, respondent-2 herein, purchased that property. In February 1979, Satyanarayana demolished the structure there on and started constructing a new building consisting of three floors obviously meant for opening a lodge. Upon enquiry, appellants were informed that the building license was sanctioned to respondent-...
Abdul Gaffar Vs. Jaffar Saheb
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2990
ORDER 20 Rule 15 -- Sale of partnership property not within Order 21.Order 20 Rule 15 prescribes a separate procedure as to how a decree in a suit for dissolution of partnership should be drawn up and should be executed. The order regarding sale of partnership properties would fall within the ambit of Order 20 Rule 15 C.P.C. Such a sale would not fall within the ambit of Order 21 at all....
Shivamurthy Mahalingappa Kuchanaur Vs. Dannamma Devi Cycle Mart, Rabak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant26; ILR1986KAR2127
ORDER1. By consent of learned Counsel, this revision petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard them.2. In this revision petition under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code'), the scope and ambit of R. 32(l) of 0. XXI of the Code, arise for decision.3. Shivamurthy Mahalingappa Kuchanaur, the petitioner here, was the defendant in 0. S. No. 120/84, on the file of the Court of Munsiff at Banahatti, while the Dannamma devi Cycle Mart represented by its owner Basetteppa Shivarudrappa Sanakal, the respondent here, was the plaintiff therein. That suit had been instituted to restrain the defendant by means of perpetual injunction, from interfering with the plaintiffs alleged possession and enjoyment of a shop premises, C.T. S. No. 139 1, situated at Rabakavi and an ex parte decree therein had come to be made on 30-4-1984 accordingly. The plaintiff, as decree-holder, sought to execute that decree against the defendant-judgment-debtor in Ex...
Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Kar)128; [1986]160ITR50(KAR); [1986]160ITR50(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the petitioners in all these cases have challenged certain provision of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), on grounds that are common, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. The first petitioner in each of Writ Petitions Nos. 7399, 8785 of 1984, 1237, 1238, 1269 and 1623 of 1985, who are the principal petitioners, are either public or private limited companies incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in carrying on one or the other businesses detailed in their respective writ petitions. The second petitioner in each of them are either directors or shareholders of the respective companies, who have joined to avoid technical objections based on the challenge to article 19 of the Constitution. We will, therefore, treat the first petitioner in each of them as the petitioner. The other petitioners in all other cases are partnership firms engaged in carrying on one or the other businesses detailed in their respective petitio...
Arun Prasad Vs. Chairman, Selection Committee
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1331; 1986(1)KarLJ384
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.Grievance of Petitioner relates to allotment of his admission to study M.D. in Medicine to a private Medical College.2. Petitioner though secured admission in merit pool has been assigned to Gulbarga Medical Collage, an institution run by a registered society. His contention is that when he has secured admission in merit pool he must have been assigned to any one of the Government Colleges and not a private Medical College and impugned assignment/allotment to Private Medical College being arbitrary and illegal must be quashed with a further direction, directing admission to a Government College.3. Selection to M. D. Course is governed by what is known as Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission to Post-graduate Courses) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). In order to resolve the controversy, it is necessary to know the scope and ambit of these Rules including power of Selection Committee. These Rules are applicable to selection of ca...
Dhalumal Lakhimal Ramchandani Vs. Vimal Shivarudra Wajantri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-04-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas543(Kar)
Murlidhar Rao, J.1. This appeal, against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Belgaum, dated April 22, 1985, in MVC No 346 of 1982, is by the owner of Tempo No MEI 4488, in respect of the compensation awarded to claimants-wife and children of Shivarudra Wajantri. The said Shivaruda Wajantri was returning from Goa in the said tempo. The tempo dashed against a roadside tree, resulting in the death of Shivarudra Wajantri. The tempo was driven by Ramesh (respondent No 4). Shivarudra Wajantri was working in Basavanni Brothers Band Co on a monthly salary of Rs. 500; he was 36 years old at the time of the accident. He was a 'Shehnai' player. 2. The Tribunal, after holding that the death was due to rash and negligent driving by Ramesh, has awarded compensation at Rs. 44,000. The liability is fastened on the owner and driver of tempo. The insurance company is absolved of the liability, as the act of carrying passengers in the vehicle was in contravention of rule 161 of the Moto...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »