Karnataka Court February 1987 Judgments
S.V. Kanakaraj and ors. Vs. Vijaya Bank, Mangalore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Kant252; ILR1987KAR1317
1. This is an appeal by judgment-debtors 4,5 and 6 against the order dt. 5-41982 passed by the civil Judge Chickmagalur,in Execution Case NO.159 of 1976 rejecting I.A.No.6 filed by judgment-debtors 2 and 4 Under O.21,R.90 read with S. 151,C.P.C. and rejecting I.A.No.7 filed by judgment-debtors 5 and 6 under O.21, R.90 read with S. 151, C.P.C.2. The decree-holder Vijaya Bank is respondent 1in the revision .The decree holder Vijaya Bank obtained a decree against judgment-debtors 1to 8 in O.S. 21 of 1979. Judgment-debtor 1is the firm. Judgment-debtor 2 S. K. Venkatachala Setty is shown as a partner of the said firm. It is now submitted before me that S.K.Venkatachala ,Setty is dead. Therefore the execution is proceeded with by the decree-holder against judgment-debtors 3 to 7.3. The property was brought to sale by the decree-holder Bank. The sale was held on the spot on 7-3-1979 and the sale took place in the Court on 9-3-1979. The present auction purchaser respondent 5 was the highest bi...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaveera Vs. Mangaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1940; 1987(1)KarLJ312
ORDER 21 RULES 58, 97 and 99 AS AMENDED -- Order passed under Order 21 Rule 58(4) treated as decree -- Questions of right, title and interest in proceedings under Rules 97 or 99 to be decided by the concerned Court; separate suit barred -- After amendment no suit dealing with identical issue covered by Rules 58, 97 and 99 --suit not maintainable ; remedy only under Order 21.In execution, prior to 1976 amendment, two types of suits were contemplated: They are - 1) Order 21 Rule 6.3 and 2) Order 21 Rule 103. After amendment such suits cannot be entertained. The order passed under Sub-section (4) of Order 21 Rule 58 is treated as a decree ; similarly all questions of right, title and interest, decided in a proceeding under Rule 97 or Rule 99 shall be determined by the Court dealing with these Petitions and separate suit is barred. Resultant position is, after the 1976 amendment there cannot be a suit dealing with the identical issue, which is covered by Order 21 Rules 38, 97 or 99. If suc...
Tag this Judgment!U.M. Puttaswamy Gowda Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)KarLJ239; (1988)IILLJ1Kant
1. The petitioner, an ex-employee of the Coffee Board, has questioned the legality of the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him after his retirement. 2. The petition is in the Orders' list. By consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for hearing. 3. The undisputed facts of the case are these : The petitioner joined the service of the Board on 25th August 1943. He retired from service on 28th May 1980. By memorandum dated 5th March 1984, disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him. The article of charges and the statement of imputation have been set out at Annexure-I and II to the Memorandum. They read : Annexure-I 'Article of charges framed against Sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda, Assistant Coffee Marketing Officer, Coffee Board, Chickmagalur. That Sri U. M. Puttaswamy Gowda, while functioning as Asst. Coffee Marketing Officer, Coffee Board, during the period between 1st January 1960 and 28th May 1980, has committed gross official misconduct ...
Tag this Judgment!Chitalia Bros. Vs. the South Indian Bank, Trichur and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant59; ILR1987KAR1242
Bopanna, J. 1. This appeal by the 5th defendant is preferred against the judgment and decree made by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 95 of 1971- decreeing the suit of the plaintiff against defendants 1 and 5 for a sum of Rs. 32,629-25 p. with costs and current interest at 6% per annum to be recovered by the sale of the plaint schedule properties and, in the event of any deficiency in the sale proceeds a decree for the balance amount to be recovered from the 1st defendant personally. The 1st defendant had remained ex parte before the trial Court and in this Court also and, therefore, the validity or otherwise of the second part of the decree against the 1st defendant personally does not arise for consideration in this appeal. We are only concerned with the mortgage decree made against the 5th defendant.2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. But, certain legal issues arise for consideration which, in our view, require to be considered, since t...
Tag this Judgment!Sunita Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Kant198; ILR1987KAR985
1. This is an appeal by defendant- I against the order dated 2-2-1985 passed by the Add. Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in O. S. 106/80, dismissing LAX filed by defendant-1 under O. 33, R. 1, on the second occasion.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. 106/80 to recover about 30 lakhs and odd from the defendants. The defendant-I filed I.A. VII making a counter claim of about a crore and 26 lakhs and he sought permission to make the counter claim as an indigent person. The said I.A.V11 came to be dismissed for default on 1-10-1983. I.A.IX was filed under O. 9, R. 9 to set aside the ex parte order of dismissing I.A.V11 for default. He also filed second application LAX under O. 33 R. I again to permit him to make a counter claim as an indigent person. The trial Court dismissed I.A.IX and it also dismissed LAX on the ground that an order passed dismissing I.A.IX filed under O. 9, R. 9 would bar the subsequent petition. M.F.A. 1528/85 was filed against the dismissal of I.A.IX f...
Tag this Judgment!S. S. Gundiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR906
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the Karnataka Zilla Parishads (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). He has also further prayed for a declaration that the Associated Members and the Members of the Legislative Assembly, the Members of the Legislative Council and the Members of the Parliament in the State are not the members of the electoral college for the election of the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha under Section 165 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (Karnataka Act No. 20/1985) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').2. Sri. A.K. Subbaiah, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made it clear during the course of his arguments that though the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Rules, but he is not interested in challenging the validity of the Explanation to Su...
Tag this Judgment!M. Lingaraju Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1788
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These petitions are disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents. They are disposed of by this common order as questions of law, and to some extent the questions of facts are common to all the petitions.2. In Writ Petition No. 6896/1986, the petitioners are workmen of Gouribidanur Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, represented by the employees Union, both of the workers as well as the officials. In Writ Petition No. 6897/1986 the petitioners arc workmen of Gouri Industries (Distillery) represented by Gouri Sugar Factory (Distillery) Employees' Union, by its President. The respondents are State of Karnataka, the Director of Sugar and Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka, Sri R.L. Jalappa, Minister for Co-operation, Government of Karnataka the Management of Gouribidanur Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane (in Liquidation), the Management of Gouri Industries (Distillery) represented by its partners, the Union of In...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi V.V.S. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant43
ORDER1. The Petitioner in this petition has questioned the constitutional validity of sub-r. (8) of R. 3 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission to Postgraduate Courses) Rules, 1986 ('the Rules' for short).2. This petition has come up for Preliminary hearing today, after notice to the respondents and by consent of the learned counsel, it is taken up for final hearing.3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : Petitioner's father is an officer on the establishment of the Reserve Bank of India. Since 1976 he has been posted at Bangalore and he is residing in this State. The petitioner joined the 9th Standard at Mahila Seva Samaja High School, Bangalore .in the year 1976 and after, studying for two years in the said school, she completed the S.S.L.C. in 1978. Thereafter she joined the National College, Jayanagar, Bangalore and passed P.U.C. during the academic years 1978 to 1980. She is a holder of National Merit Scholarship. She had secured more than 90 per cen...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Gopalakrishna Vs. Pukhraj D. Jain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR957; 1987(1)KarLJ164
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is an unusual revision by the plaintiff against the decree dated 24-7-85 passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore in O.S. 1891/80 decreeing the suit against defendants 1 to 5 only.2. There was an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff executed by defendant No. 1 and others. In pursuance of that agreement, the plaintiff had paid Rs. 47,000/- as advance. Later on disputes appear to have arisen between the parties. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 47,000/- which he had given as advance to defendant No. 1 and others under the said agreement of sale.3. Defendants resisted the suit.4. In the meanwhile plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking an amendment of the plaint and thereby praying for the relief of specific performance. It was rejected by the trial Court. His revision to this Court failed. Thereafter, he filed an application for amendment of plaint seeking a further amou...
Tag this Judgment!K. Janardhana Vs. K.S.R.T.C
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1965
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. Petitioner who is a Driver of the respondent Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation is aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 11-11-1986 made in exercise of his power under Regulation 19(2) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations read with Schedule appended thereto. He has accepted the enquiry authority's findings that the petitioner who was driving the vehicle bearing registration mark MYF-6656 on National Highway between Hassan and Mangalore drove the said vehicle negligently and collided with taxi bearing registration mark MYG-4532 resulting in damages to both vehicles and causing death to four of the passengers at the spot of the accident.2. The Enquiry Officer has discussed the material on which he came to the conclusion that the accident would have been avoided if the driver of the vehicle belonging to the Corporation was conscious of the on-coming vehicles.3. The main c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »