Karnataka Court January 1987 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.
Thimmaiah Vs. Kariyappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2589; 1987(2)KarLJ73
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. The petitioners in W.Ps. 2205 to 2207/85 are also the petitioners in W.Ps. 2301 and 2302/85. In W.Ps. 15504/84 and W.Ps. 2301 and 2302 of 1985, the Order dated 17th November 1980, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, in Case No. L.N.D. RA.1/80-81 and also the order dated 16-6-1984 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal Nos. 383, 384 and 385 of 1980, are challenged. Whereas, in W.Ps. 2205 to 2207 of 1985, the Order dated 28th March, 1981 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore in No. LND RA 221/80-81 ; and the order dated 16-6-1984 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.1l5 of 1982 and 228 of 1981 are challenged.2. In these petitions the subject-matter relates to validity of the grant of land. An extent of 4 acres in favour of Thimmaiah and 4 acres in favour of Sadan and two acres in favour of Goolappa, granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, in No. B.Dis. L. & D (CR 202/77-78) dated 12th October 1978, i...
Karnataka Trader, Hubli Vs. Hiren Shamji Karamsey and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Kant204; ILR1987KAR568
1. This is a defendant's appeal against the order dated 20-2-1986 passed by the Civil Judge, Gadag, in O.S. No. 157 of 1985 allowing I.A.No. 3 and appointing the Receiver.2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit. The respondents in the appeal are the plaintiffs. The parties have been referred to with reference to their position in the trial Court.3. Plaintiff-1 is the son of Shamji and plaintiff-2 is the wife of Shamji. Shamji's father had created a Trust known as 'Shamji Karamsey Trust' and he was the managing trustee himself during his lifetime. Plaintiff-2 who is the wife of Shamji, was also co-opted as a co-trustee. It is undisputed that on the death of Shamji's father, Shamji and his wife plaintiff-2 were co-trustees of the Trust in question.4. It is undisputed that the said Shamji leased out the suit trust property to the defendant initially in 1971 and thereafter the lease was again renewed by Shamji on 29-8-1980 which came to an end on 30th September, 1985. The plaintiffs ...
Kaverappa Vs. District and Sessions Judge
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR892
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these petitions presented by the members of the staff of the Subordinate Courts of this State, the following question of law arises for consideration :'Whether the exclusion of the service rendered by the petitioners, after their regular recruitment, in the District in which they were recruited before their transfer, at their request, to the districts in which they are now working, in computing the regular service rendered by them for purposes of according selection time scale applicable to them under the provisions of The Karnataka Civil Services (Time Bound Advancement) Rules, 1983 ('the Rules' for short) is authorised by the Rules ?2. Before going into the merits of these cases it is necessary to decide the following preliminary question regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide these petitions :Whether the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain Writ Petitions preferred by the Officers and servants of the Subordinate Courts or members of th...
Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corporation and Anot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-02-1987
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas405(Kar); 1990(3)KarLJ124
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These matters are disposed of even at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents and after hearing counsel for parties. The respondents Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corporation has filed its statement objections. 2. The short question which arises for consideration in these batch of writ petitions is whether the levy of licence fee (renewal) in the sum of Rs.43,320 on the basis of the motor power used by the petitioner company at Rs. 2 per horse power subject to the minimum of Rs.50 as revised by resolution No.1807 of the Administrator discharging the duties and functions of the Corporation Council. The resolution is dated March 30, 1978. It is the legality and competence of this levy of licence fee for renewal of licence to carry on the trade and industry that is under challenge. 3. Briefly state, the case made out for the petitioner is that Formally a nominal fee of Rs.35 per month was being charged as the licence fee to carry on the ac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›