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.
Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant157; 1987(3)KarLJ172
ORDER1. Heard counsel on both sides on the merits of the matter.2. Petitioner has challenged the validity of S. 9 of the Carrier Act, 1865 as violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. The contention is, that, the provision imposes a burden on one set of common carriers only, without a similar burden being cast on other common carriers like Railways and Airways. It is contended that petitioners are carrying on their trade as a common carrier by road; the onerous restriction imposed by S, 9 of the said Act read with its discriminatory results, renders it void, as being violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.3. Before adverting to the provisions of the impugned provisions, the law governing the Railways may be referred as stated in Pollock and Mulla's Contract Act, 10th edition (page 781 etc.):RE. RAILWAYS:'When goods are entrusted to railways for carriage it has to take such care as is provided in S. 151, Contract Act. The onus on the Railway to show that it had taken such care and if th...
E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR105
Rama Jois, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the following common question of law arises for consideration :'Whether Section 20 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short) which provides for payment of court fee at the rate of ten per cent ad valorem, computed on the basis of the monetary value of the suit claim without any ceiling and/or a tapering rate of court fee over and above a specified limit, is constitutionally valid?'2. The provisions of the Constitution which are relevant to the above question are : Article 245(1) of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India and the Legislature of a State to make laws for the whole or any part of the State subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Under Article 246(1) the Parliament has the exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List-1 of the VII Schedule. Under Article 246(3), the Legislature of...
Narayana Bhat Vs. Narasimha Sastry
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR549; 1988(1)KarLJ8
Hiremath, J.1. The appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. 319/ 1968 challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court in R.A.No. 124/1975.2. The original suit was against two defendants for prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction, the plaintiff claiming to be owner of survey Nos. 108/1, 108/2 and 108/5 of Vittal Padnur village. He alleged in the plaint that on 1-11-1968 both the defendants trespassed into his land survey No. 108/5, and demolished the kattabuni shown as 'KKK' in the plaint sketch and cut the three coconut plants which were yielding coconuts and also cut other trees. They also levelled the kattabuni to the ground by spreading mud. Then they made a big channel measuring 3 feet wide 2 feet deep and 50 feet long at the place where kattabuni stood.3. The defendants denied these allegations and it is unnecessary to traverse into their defence as the appeal could be disposed of on a short point. During the pendency of the suit, the second defendant die...
M. Subramanyam Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR210
ORDERKulkarni, J. 1. The learned counsel Sri Hanumantharaya for the petitioner and the Government Advocate Sri Jadhav for the respondent submitted that the matter may be heard finally on merits. Accordingly I heard them on merits for final disposal of the case.2. The material facts are: on 2-12-1983 at about 9.30 P.M. the victim Sudhakar examined as P.W.2 was coming cycling near Mico Factory. At that time a scooter MYO 2930 came from behind and dashed against him. As a result thereof he fell down sustaining the injuries. Scooterist went away without giving him first aid. He himself got the treatment and lodged the complaint. The police registered a case in Crime No. 967/83 and recorded the scene of offence panchanama and prepared the sketch and recorded the statement of the victim and thereafter filed chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The police papers as required by the Court are produced by Sri Hanumantharaya, the learned couns...
Pushpa Vs. Devendrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1346
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs., J.1. The revision petition is directed against the order made by the learned Civil judge at Davangere in M.C.No. 20/1986. The order under revision is made on I.A. No. 2. It was for payment of maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings in the Court. The proceedings were initiated by the husband - M. Devendrappa seeking divorce on such grounds as are available to him.2. The grievance of the applicant-revision petitioner is confined to the quantum of pendente lite maintenance awarded by the Court. She had claimed Rs. 1500/- having regard to number of commitments including the fact that she is a medical student at Belgaum. The learned Judge after carefully analysing the material placed before him has come to the conclusion that Rs.500/- per mensem would be adequate maintenance pendente lite and therefore has directed that amount to be paid by the husband. He has also directed a sum of Rs.2000/- to be paid by way of costs of the proceedings.3. The Court ex...
Mahadeva Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3720
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. This public interest Petition is presented on the allegation that the 5th respondent was attempting to occupy the additional floors of a commercial complex called 'Sangeeta' which are directed to be demolished by an order of this Court as they were built in breach of an undertaking given before this Court by the 5th respondent and without license from the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and in plain contravention of the Comprehensive Development Plan promulgated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, and therefore the 5th respondent should be restrained from occupying that portion of the building.2. In order to appreciate the gravity of the situation, it is necessary to set out the history of the case.3. There are two commercial multistoreyed buildings called 'Rajatha' and 'Sangeetha' which have been constructed by Rajatha Enterprises and Vinayaka Investments the 5th respondent, respectively. 'Rajatha' is notorious for having been constructed even ...
Vinayaka Investments Vs. Commissioner Corporation of the City of Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3742; 1987(3)KarLJ585
ORDERRama Jois, J.1 .In this Writ Petition the petitioner, inter alia, has sought for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Corporation of the City of Bangalore to issue Completion Certificate and permission to occupy under Section 310 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short), in respect of a building constructed by the petitioner on Site Nos. 771 to 774, O.T.C. Road, Bangalore.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follow :The petitioner had secured a licence from the Corporation of the City of Bangalore for construction of a multi-storied commercial complex vide L.P. No. 2611/80 81 on 25-10-1980. According to the petitioner, he completed the construction and made an application under Section 310 of the Act to the Commissioner for the issue of the Completion Certificate and permission to occupy the building. On the ground that the Commissioner failed to grant or refuse the application within 30 days as required under Sub-section(2) of Section 3...
Laxmanrao Krishnaji Kulkarni Vs. Balakrishna Yellappa Ghodake
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-04-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1987; 1987(3)KarLJ589
K.A. Swami, J.1. The appellants are defendants 1 to 3. Respondents 1 to 5 are theplaintiffs Respondent No. 6 is the 4th defendant. In this Judgment,the parties will be referred to with reference to the positionassigned to them in the trial Court. Defendants 1 to 3 have preferredthis appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 31-10-1986 passed bythe Additional Civil Judge. Hubli in O.S.No. 146 of 19802. The trial Court apart from other findings has also recorded afinding that Clause 9 of the mortgage deed in so far it enables themortgagees to continue in possession as tenants even after theredemption of the mortgage is a clog on the right of redemption and assuch is not enforceable. The terms of the decree are as follows:'1) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under. 2)Preliminary decree be drawn as follows:(1) The plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the suit propertymortgaged by them under Ex.P. 1 to the defendant 1 to 3 in respect ofCTS Nos.3560/3.3600.3601 and 3561 andA3562 (HDMC...
Akkavva Vs. Basanagouda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-03-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR545; 1988(1)KarLJ66
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This revision is preferred under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the decision of the appellate authority constituted for Belgaum District. The -appeal stood transmitted to the said authority on account of the amendment made to the Act. The appellant before the authority was the Writ Petitioner in this Court earlier before the amendment. In the Writ Petition, he had challenged the finding recorded by the Land Tribunal, Bailhongal in Belgaum rejecting his application for occupancy rights in respect of certain agricultural lands of which he claimed to be the tenant. The main ground urged was that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for registration of occupancy rights under Section 48A of the Act despite the admission of Akkavva, the alleged landlord, that she had allowed the land to be cultivated by him on payment of Rs.600/- which she had borrowed for the sake of providing medical as...
N.S. Bangera Vs. Rama Bangera
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1382; 1987(3)KarLJ51
Hiremath, J. 1. The appellants were plaintiffs in O.S.No. 264/71 before the I Additional Munsiff, Mangalore. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction, firstly restraining the defendants from proceeding with the un-authorized construction said to be put up in the suit open site belonging to the joint family of the plaintiffs and defendants; and secondly, to demolish the construction that had come up on the site by the time the suit was filed.2. It is not disputed that plaintiffs and defendants are governed by Aliasanthana law as administered in the South Kanara District of this State and are the descendants of a common female ancestress Korapolu Hengasu. Defendant-1 is the Ejman of the family living at Mangalore and managing the family properties. The property in question is situate within the municipal limits of Mangalore town presently and is given T.S.No. 860 measuring 30 cents and it is mulgeni land. There is also a family house bearing door...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »