Karnataka Court April 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.
Hemavathi Vs. Vasudeva Bhat
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-08-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3007
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by judgment debtor No. 2 against the order dated 6-3-1986 passed by the I Additional I Munsiff, Mysore in Execution Case No. 217/83 over-ruling the objection of the revision petitioner-second judgment debtor and ordering the issue of the delivery warrant in respect of the ground floor portion of the premises described in the execution petition.2. It is an unfortunate litigation between the landlord and the tenant who in the initial stages had agreed only to disagree at a later stage.3. The revision petitioner-judgment debtor No. 2 is the daughter of Gowramma-judgment debtor No. 1. Judgment Debtor No. 2 is the owner of the old building which bore No. 1225 situated in Irwin Road, Mysore. The decree-holder was a tenant in the said old building. On 31-1-1975, there was an agreement between the decree-holder-tenant and the judgment debtor No. 1 Gowramma (mother of JDR No. 2 who was then a minor) that the decree-holder should handover possession of the ...
Karnataka Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1986
Reported in: [1987]164ITR140(KAR); [1987]164ITR140(Karn)
K.S. Puttaswamy, J.1. In these separate but identical references made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore ('the Tribunal'), at the instance of the assessee, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court for the three assessment years of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was not entitled to the allowance under section 35B of the Income-tax Act in respect of expenditure of Rs. 30,900 for the assessment year 1977-78 ?'2. In order to appreciate the question referred to us, it is necessary to notice, in the first instance, the facts as found by the Tribunal. 3. The assessee is a wholly owned Government company of the Government of Karnataka. The assessee has been incorporated, inter alia, with the primary object of carrying on business 'to aid, counsel, assist, finance, protect and promote the interests of small industries ...
Deepak Vs. Karnataka University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR414; (1987)IILLJ93Kant
ORDER1. In these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the notices dated 12th March, 1986 (Annexures A to D) and 13th March, 1986 (Annexure-E) issued by the 2nd respondent. By notices produced as Annexures A to D, the petitioners in Writ Petitions 4833, 4835 and 4836/86 have been called upon to explain and show cause in writing within seven days from the date of service of notices as to why they should not be permanently debarred from the college and in case they fail to offer any explanation as aforesaid, it will be presumed that they have nothing to explain and further action will be taken against them as deemed fit in the interest of the administration of the College and maintaining law and order among the students. Pending enquiry, the petitioners are also kept under suspension and they are further directed not to attend the classes and not to enter the class rooms for taking lessons and vacate the hostel rooms which they are...
Dr. T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-07-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1962; 1986(2)KarLJ313
ORDERMahendra, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases between the same parties are either common or interconnected, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. One Dr. T. M. A. Pai of Dakshina Kannada District, a Medical Practitioner by profession but a great humanist and educationist with a passion for social service started a society called 'Academy of General Education Udipi' (Academy) in 1942, with the 'main object to establish and maintain educational institutions of different types and then help the educational and cultural advancement of the Country' and with this object in view started several vocational centres and a Second Grade College at Udipi. The Academy was purely an educational organisation to help the Government and the Country in carrying on the important task of nation building. The Academy was considerably agitated over the problem of medical education in the Country and as the number of Medical Colleges in the Country then was insu...
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. S. Narayana Bhatta and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas178(Kar)
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal by the Karnataka Bank, the unsuccessful plaintiff, directed against the judgment and decree dated September 12, 1983, passed in O.S. No.13 of 1981 on the file of the Civil Judge, Srirangapatna, dismissing its suit for recovery of money advanced on the security of a contract vehicle, raises certain interesting questions couching on the extent of the bar of civil court's jurisdiction under the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976.2. The plaintiff, Karnataka Bank Ltd., on August 1, 1972, agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 1,08,000 to S. Narayana Bhatta, the first defendant, to enable him to purchase a new Ashok Leyland bus to be used as a contract carriage. The first defendant's father was a surety. His legal representatives are defendants NOs. 2 to 8. The state Government is defendant No.9.3. Out of the sanctioned loan of Rs. 1,08,000, Rs. 74,112.33 was released on August 1, 1972, for payment to the supplier of the chassis at Ananthapur. Two s...
Arun Prasad Vs. Chairman, Selection Committee
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR1781
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order made by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition and rejecting the plea of the appellant for a seat in the Post-graduate Course in any one of the Government Medical Colleges.2. Arun Prasad, the appellant, is a medical graduate. He applied for a seat in the Post-graduate Course in medicine for the academic year 1985-86. He has been selected for admission but allotted to Gulbarga Medical College, which is a Private Medical College. He filed a Writ Petition challenging the selection as arbitrary and contrary to the Rules regulating the admission to Post-graduate course. His contention was that he ought to have been selected for admission to any one of the Government Medical Colleges and not to a Private Medical College. Learned Single Judge after considering the relevant Rules did not accept his contention.Hence this Writ Appeal.3. The question raised in this appeal turns on the true scope and ambit ...
Bettamma Vs. Narayanamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2124
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. Applicant in these various interlocutary applications was the tenant/revision petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 80/1983. That Petition came to be disposed of by me on 16th day of September 1985 by a considered order. I am informed that, that order has been taken up in appeal to Supreme Court under Article 136 and pending there. In the meanwhile, the petitioner/applicant has discovered that respondent/landlord Narayana Murthy had died long before 16th September 1985. In this circumstance it is now contended that these applications to bring L. Rs on record, to set aside the abatement and to recall the order made on 16th day of September 1985 as one without jurisdiction are maintainable.2. Neither the deceased landlord's Counsel nor the applicant/petitioner's Counsel were aware of the death when they appeared on 16th day of September 1985. Petition of the revision petitioner was taken up and disposed of as if respondent was alive. It is only now that...
Ravindranath Vs. Rukminiammal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2389
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. The appellant instituted a suit in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, established under the City Civil Court Act, 1979 ('the City Civil Court Act' for short), seeking grant of a perpetual injunction against respondent-1 respecting an immovable property, the value of which was not less than Rs. 20,000/-. In that suit, he made an interlocutory application--I.A.II, under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code' for short), seeking grant of temporary injunction. That application was rejected by an order made by the City Civil Court. The appellant has questioned the validity of that order before this Court by preferring an appeal under Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the the First Schedule to the Code.2. Whether the powers of the High Court in relation to an appeal under Rule 1 of Order XLIII of the First Schedule to the Code, have to be exercised by a single Judge or by us, a Bench of two Judges, is a question which is required to be reso...
Harinarayan Abhayankar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4125
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a licenced money lender and pawn broker doing business in City of Gulbarga. He is aggrieved by the letter (Annexure 'A') issued to him by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Registrar of Money Lenders, Gulbarga whereby he is directed to maintain accounts as per Acts and Rules and show to the concerned Assistant Registrar of CS (Money lenders) within fortnight to renew his licence for the year 1976. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to declare Sub-section(2) of Section 10 of the Mysore Pawn Brokers Act 1961 as ultravires of the Constitution of India, as it prevents him from maintaining his account in Hindi and consequently to issue a Writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 not to insist him to keep accounts in English or Kanaada. The petitioner has obtained interim direction directing the authorities not to insist the maintaining of account either in English or Kannada. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been ma...
Abdul Khader Vs. Land Tribunal, Sedam and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant18; ILR1986KAR1446
Venkatesh, J.1. The appellant Abdul Khader has preferred this appeal against the order dated 31-10-1985 of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 10090 of 1984.2. In the petition filed by him under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Abdul Khader had challenged the order dated 21-51984 of the Land Tribunal, Sedam, Gulbarga District (No. REV/LRY/74-75/392) declaring him as a surplus holder and directing him to surrender 32 acres, 37 guntas of land. The Tribunal had passed that order under S. 67 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. (the Act) on a declaration made by Abdul. Khader before it in form No. 11, under S. 66 of the Act.3. Petitioner Abdul Khader's case before the learned single Judge was that he was not a surplus holder, was not liable to surrender any extent of land and that the Tribunal had committed an error in declaring him as such.4. In the declaration he had filed in the Tribunal, the petitioner had stated 'the lands declared by him are joint family lands which are sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »