Karnataka Court October 1987 Judgments
Kumari Uma Vs. Board of Pre-university Education
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1987
Reported in: ILR1989KAR768; 1987(3)KarLJ477
Bopanna, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order of Rama Jois, J. in Writ Petitions 5320 of 1980 and other connected Writ Petitions disposed of on 11-4-1985. By that order the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions of the Appellants/Petitioners on the ground that these are not fit cases for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Appellants are all students who had taken their examinations in various subjects in the P.U.C. examination conducted by the Pre-University Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in the month of April, 1982. The results of the examination were announced in the month of June, 1982. Each of the appellants had failed in one or other subjects and consequently, they failed in the examination. After the results were announced, they invoked the provisions of Rule 38 of the Rules relating to Pre-University Examinations published by the State Government in Notification No. MED 119 UDC ...
Tag this Judgment!Nataraj Talkies Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR718; [1988]69STC278(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners who are exhibitors of cinematograph films, have challenged the recovery of difference of tax under section 6B of the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 10162 of 1987, who is an exhibitor of cinematograph films in Dandeli in his theatre - Ashoka Talkies, has challenged the notice issued by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Dharwad, the second respondent, under section 13 of the Act for composition of the offence in defaulting to pay the difference of tax payable by the petitioner under section 4A for the period from 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987. A sum of Rs. 16,216.20, being the difference of tax payable by the petitioner for the above period is sought to be recovered by the respondent under section 6B of the Act. 3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 10032 of 1987 is exhibiting cinematograph films in Sirsi in his theatre - Nataraj...
Tag this Judgment!indira Bai Vs. Parashuram Kallappa Hande
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1307
Hiremath, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.75/72 before the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, for a decree for specific performance of an agreement on the part of the defendants to sell the suit property. The suit property is a shop building situated at Kirloskar Road, Belgaum City, bearing CTS.No.1766 measuring 226 sq. yards with a backyard and a right to use privy and well in an adjoining property. The 2nd defendant who is also the second respondent in this appeal has been carrying on a cold drink house under the name and style 'Imperial Cold Drink House, Belgaum.'This property originally belonged to her deceased husband Nagesh. He sold it away to defendant-1 for Rs.8,000/- on 15-7-1955. Nagesh was in financial difficulties when he was compelled to sell this property for Rs. 8,000/- as there were two mortgages of the same property and the mortgage debt was required to be discharged. Thus the mortgage money of Rs. 6,958-10 ps was left with the purchaser de...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Harpanahalli Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3833
ORDERNavadgi, J.In this Revision Petition, the Order dated 20-5-1985 made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharwad, in C.C.No. 1723/83 on his file, is challenged.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioners Nos.1 and 2; Sri K. Srinivasa Gowda, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1; and the learned Counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3. I have perused the record.3. The question for determination is; Whether the order impugned in this Revision Petition is illegal, incorrect or improper so as to justify interference with it in this Revision Petition?4. The facts relevant for our present purpose are very few and they are as follows:Sham Krishna Rao Harapanahalli, respondent No. 3 herein, lodged a complaint against T.M. Harapanahalli (petitioner No. 1), Smt. Rama Bai, his wife (petitioner No 2) and Gulam Modin, respondent No. 2 herein, alleging offences punishable under Sections 466 and 107 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The Additiona...
Tag this Judgment!Paramma Vs. Chikarangappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Kant63; ILR1988KAR1949
1. The appellant was the second defendant 1n O.S. No. 147/75 before the Munsiff Court, Hosadurga, filed by respondents 1 to 3 against the present appellant and her father respondent 4 for a declaration that the deed dt. 15-6-1974 executed by their father first defendant in the original suit in her favour is not binding on then to cancel the same in respect of the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession.2. Defendant 2 appellant is the daughter of defendant 1 and he has another daughter who is not a party to the suit and she is married. The plaintiffs allege that they and their father defendant 1 were the members of the undivided Hindu family and the suit property which is an agricultural land measuring 1 acre 18 guntas bearing R. S.No. 6/1 of Neralakeri village in Hosadurga Taluk and, other properties which are not included in the suit are the joint family properties. Their father was indulging in evil ways and squandering ...
Tag this Judgment!irappa @ Veerappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3793; 1987(3)KarLJ536
Kulkarni, J.Criminal Appeal 421 of 1986 by P.W. 13 - Irappa is directed against the order dated 31-1-1986 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1985, ordering the confiscation of the gun M.O. 1.Criminal Appeal 583 of 986 by the State is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31-1-1986 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1985, acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC.2. The material facts are as under -On 22-7-1984, the Deputy Superintendent of Excise Sri Ayyappa Tarapati Sadavanhi P W. 1 along with the Excise Inspector of Soundatti Sri Dyamappa-P W. 2, Excise Sub-Inspector of Bailhongal Sri Subhash - P. W. 3, Excise Guard Laxman-P.W. 4, another Excise Sub-Inspector of Dandeli Sri Digambhar-P.W. 5, deceased Excise Guard K.N Patil and Hanumanthappa P W. 7, Maruti-P.W. 8 and Irappa P.W.13 had gone to Hogaratti Hanamanatti forest for detecting distillation...
Tag this Judgment!E. Venkatakrishna Vs. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Kant35
ORDER1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a declaration that Cl.27(n) of the agreement regarding the distributorship of Liquified Petroleum Gas entered into between him and the respondentIndian Oil Corporation, as void as offending Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and for the, issue of consequential orders quashing the order by which the said distributorship agreement between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation was terminated.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Distributor of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG for short) for Hebbal and Yelahanka area in the City of Bangalore, on -40-2-1984. An agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation ('the Corporation' for short) on 5-3-1984 in which the terms and conditions under which the petitioner was appointed as a Distributor for the LPG were set out. On 29-7-1987 the officers of the Corporation carried out a surprise inspect...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation Bank Vs. Prabhu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3113
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. Whether costs awardable under Order XXA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the Code'), by the Court become a part of 'the amount claimed' occurring in Section 21 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('the Court Fees Act'), requiring payment of fee specified therein, is the question which arises for consideration in this revision petition.2. The Corporation Bank, the petitioner here, as plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, by presenting a plaint, the prayer in which read :'Wherefore, the plaintiff prays tor a Judgment and decree against the defendants for the following reliefs :(1) Direct the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff-Bank a sum of Rs. 7,058-35 along with interest thereon at 18.3% per annum from the date of suit till the date of payment.(2) Direct the defendants to pay cost of suit and grant such other and further reliefs as are just including a sum of Rs. 50/- towards typing ...
Tag this Judgment!M.P.R. Perumalaswamy Chettiar and ors. Vs. R.V. Madhava Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant165
1. This is an appeal preferred by defendants I to 3 in O.S.No. 49/81 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore, against the Judgment and decree dt. 17-3-1987 made therein.2. The parties in this appeal would be hereinafter referred to with reference to the ranks assigned to them in the trial court.3. The plaintiff instituted the suit to recover Rs. 2 2.603.44 ps. towards the arrears of rent or damages for the period from 1-1-74 to 1-2-81 at the rate of Rs. 250/- P.M. and also damages for unauthorised alteration- to the demised premises at As. 2500/- and notice charges of Rs. 100/-, after giving deduction to Rs. 1246.56 ps. towards the property tax paid by the. Defendants in respect of the demised premises.4. Defendants land 2 are father and son. They run a concern under the name and style. of -M/s. Kachins' Mens Wear', in the demised premises.5. The averments in the plaint were, that defendant-I took the demised premises on lease on a monthly rental of Rs. 65/- in 1947; that sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Ningappa Yalgundri and ors. Vs. Arunkumar Alias Basappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant139; ILR1987KAR3590
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal is by defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 who are appellants 1 to 5 this Court. They have suffered a Judgment and Decree in O.S.No. 41/1966 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum. The suit was filed by the plaintiff who is respondent - 1 in this appeal seeking partition of the suit joint family properties. The plaintiff's claim was allowed with costs decreeing that the plaintiff respondent had half share in Schedules A, B, F and G properties and 3/16 th share in the lands mentioned in Schedules C and D as for mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till date of delivery of possession of his share in the suit properties. The plaintiff was directed to file a separate application for ascertaining the mesne profits.2. In the course of this judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court for convenience.3. The facts leading to this appeal may be stated and they are set out in brief hereafter. The plai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »