Karnataka Court November 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.
Koraga Marakala and anr. Vs. Kamala and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant123; 1988(1)KarLJ34
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of I he case may be noticed: -On 28-12-1942 one Baba Poojary, husband of the first-plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs, along with the first-defendant and one Manjappa jointly purchased some properties including the suit properties as per registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Manjappa agreed to pay half the sale consideration and Baba Poojary and the first-defendant agreed to pay the remaining half of the consideration in equal shares. Subsequently, on 1-8-1955 the said three vendees entered into a registered partition deed under which the suit properties along with some other properties were allotted to the share of Baba Poojary. The plaintiffs claimed that about three months after the said partition. Baba Poojary executed a registered gift settlement deed dated 25-11-1955 in their favour, under which the properties allotted to Baba Poojary in the said partition as well as some ...
State by A. Mahadeva Vs. Papireddy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR666
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision against the order dated 4-7-1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sidlaghatta, in C.C.No. 395/87 issuing process against one Mahadevaiah for the offence punishable under Sections 499, 500 and 510 I.P.C.2. The complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the accused Mahadevaiah alleging that on 3-7-1987 a case in Crime No. 175/87 on the file of the police station of Sidlaghatta had been registered under Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. According to him, he had been engaged by the opponents in that case as their advocate. The complainant went to Taluk Office at Sidlaghatta along with the vakalath and an application for bail and also sureties. According to the complainant, P.S.I. of Sidlaghatta police station told him that the accused would be produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate at Chickballapur. According to him, the P.S.I. told him that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Chickballapur had gone to Kolar and th...
Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3903; 1987(3)KarLJ372
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This is a Writ Petition filed by Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd., Munirabad, represented by its Public Relations Officer, challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Koppal, Raichur District, vide Annexure-G as void and illegal. The impugned order is dated 12-4-1983.2. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of a heaving in accordance with the principles of natural justice before the Land Tribunal which is Respondent-2 in this case passed the impugned order on 12-4-1983.3. The material facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:The Public Relations Officer of the petitioner factory one V.H Joshi who had been attending to these matters which were before the Land Tribunal being familiar with the case was away at Bangalore on duty at the relevant point of time and this was intimated to the Tahsildar, Koppal, and also to the Land Tribunal. The Tahsildar, acting on this information, as Secretary of the Land...
Lingamma Vs. Basavaraju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR433
Nesargi, J.1. Defendant-1 in O.S. No. 412 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff, Srirangapatna, is the appellant. Respondent-1 is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 4 are the remaining defendants 2 to 4.2. The undisputed facts are that Puttegowda, husband of Honnamma and Basavegowda, grand-father of the plaintiff were brothers living jointly and possessing joint family properties, which are enumerated in Ex.P.1 dated 6-7-1944. Puttegowda executed Ex.P.1. On 13-9-1972 Honnamma executed Ex.D.9, the gift deed gifting the suit properties to defendant No. 1.3. Plaintiff's case is that Ex.D.9 is not binding on him. He has prayed for declaration that Ex.D.9 dated 13-9-1972 is not binding on him and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the suit items of properties.4. Defendants 2 to 4 are made parties on the basis of the averments in Ex.D.9 that they were tenants of the suit items.5. The suit was instituted on 25-...
Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: [1988]69STC98(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. 2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. 3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. 4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. 5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several d...
Shri Hotel Arjun Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: 1987(3)KarLJ42; (1995)IIILLJ699Kant
ORDERM.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The short question which falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner M/s. Shri Hotel Arjun of Harihar is entitled to the benefit of infancy under Section 16(1)(b) pf the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. The undisputed facts are that the premises where the petitioner is now carrying on his business was once used by M/s. 'Shanbhag Hotel'. M/s. Shanbhag Hotel closed its establishment on 15-2-1983. On 18-2-1983 M/s. Sree Enterprises represented by its own partners took over the building on rental basis from one Shri Narayana Ladva and Shri Ambasa Ladva. The previous day the same Sree enterprises purchased the utensils and other articles required for running the Hotel from the partners of M/s. Shanbhag Hotel for a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-. They renovated the hotel and renamed the Hotel as 'Hotel Arjun' employing its own new employees with effect from 1-7-19...
B.R. Bathla Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR406
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by C.W.1 Bathla, against the order dated August 29, 1987, passed by the Special Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, In C.C.No. 1 of 1987 issuing a notice to him under Section 250(1) Cr.P.C. to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused.2. The parties have been referred to with reference to their position before the Special Judge.3. A-1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act and has got its Head Office at Calcutta and Branch Offices at Bangalore, Nagpur, New Delhi and Hyderabad. A 1 has been carrying on the business of manufacturing aluminium pipes and sprinkler equipment. It also deals in stocking, supplying, distributing and selling Thin Walled Mild Steel Galvanised Pipes manufactured by A-8 at its factory at Secunderabad. A-8 is also a Company registered under the Companies Act and promoted by A-1 Company. It is manufacturing Galvanised Pipes for sprinkler irrigation equipment under Industrial Lice...
Thimaiah Vs. Madegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Kant83
1. This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 178 of 1971 and is directed against the differing judgments of the two courts below.2. This case with a very long and checkered career has brought little solace to the plaintiffs who by themselves and through their predecessor-in-interest have been batting for possession of two small bits of lands one measuring 12 guntas and another measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situate in the village Begur at Channapatna taluk within the rural district of Bangalore, from the year 1951-52 but have not been able to call it a day even after 35 years of incessant litigation carried on from the portals of the Munsiff's court at Ramanagaram to this Court, where it is making its appearance for the third time.3. This ill-fated litigation began with the purchase of these two lands in survey No. 8/1 by one Thimmaiah, maternal-grand- father of the plaintiffs, (parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant in the course of this judgment...
G. Veerabhadrappa Vs. M. Nagamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant217
1. Both these appeals arise out of a judgment and decree of the Court of' the Civil Judge, Bellary in R. As. Nos. 44 of 1975 and 45 of 1975, against the judgment and decree in Original Suit Nos. 361 of 1972 and 492 of 1972 respectively, filed by the respondents in these appeals, for restraining the 1st respondent-1st defendant in each of the suits, from running the chilly pounding machine at Bellary city, premises bearing No. 135/2 of XIII Ward. Plaintiffs in two suits were different but claiming the same relief and it was only in Original Suit No. 361 of 1972, the City Municipal Council was also impleaded as the 2nd defendant. The plaintiffs in the two suits alleged that the 1st defendant, who would be referred to as the defendant hereafter, applied to the City Municipal Council, Bellary for permission to run the chilly pounding machine and on their application complaining about the nuisance subsequently, the Municipal Council did not renew the licence. The common grievance is, that t...
Syed Abdul Wadood and Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr., Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant194; ILR1987KAR3679; 1987(3)KarLJ549
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In W.P. No. 23/1986, the prayer of the petitioner is to 'quash' the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) specially Ss. 29, 21(1) (a) and 31 of the Act. There is also a prayer to direct the State to enact a uniform legislation for the litigants in the State etc. There was also a prayer for striking down Act 31 of 1975 to the extent of it deleting the provisions for appeal under S. 48.2. Petitioner states that he applied for allotment of a premises under the provisions of the Act, which was opposed by the then landlord. The writ petition proceeds on the assumption that he is the tenant against whom eviction proceedings are pending on the file of the Court of 19th Addl. Small Causes, Bangalore. The writ petition is sketchy about the facts. It straightway attacks the provisions of the Act as discriminatory because, litigants in Bangalore are subjected to a discriminatory treatment in the matter of forum. The eviction proceedings in B...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »