Karnataka Court April 1987 Judgments
S. Kotrabasappa Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas683(Kar)
Doddakale Gowda, J.1. The important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the recipient of a certain sum of money by mistake is required to return the same with interest or not 2. The circumstances leading to this litigation are as follows : The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 34 of 1983 on the file of the Civil Judge, Davangere, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 plus Rs. 33,438.75 as interest, etc., alleging that the defendant was its constituent from May 23, 1980, to July 5, 1985, maintaining accounts in the name of 'Sri Kottureshwara Rice Mill and Oil Mills' ; that during that period, i.e., on June 14, 1980, plaintiff-bank had received a T.T. (telegraphic transfer) advice from their R.S. Puram, Coimbatore branch, to credit the account of the defendant with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000; accordingly this amount was credited and drawn by the defendant on the same day; that on receipt of confirmation telegram, dated June 21, 1980, by mistake or oversight, a further...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kotrabasappa Vs. the Indian Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Kant236; ILR1987KAR1973; 1987(2)KarLJ95
Doddakale Gowda, J.1. The important question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the recipient of a certain sum of money by mistake is required to return the same with interest or not?2. The circumstances leading to this litigation are as follows:The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 34 of 1983 on the file of (he Civil Judge, Davanager, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus Rs. 33,438-75 P. as interest etc. alleging that the defendant was its constituent from 23-5-1980 to 5-7-1985 maintaining accounts in the name of 'Sri. Kottureshwara Rice Mill and Oil Mills'; that during that period, i.e., on 14-6-1980 plaintiff-Bank had received T.T. (Telegraphic Transfer) advice from their R. S. Puram, coimbatore Branch to credit to the account of the defendant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-; accordingly, this amount was credited and drawn by the defendant on the same day; that on receipt of confirmation telegram, dated 21-6-1980, by mistake or oversight a further sum of Rs. 1,00,00...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Ramaswami Rao and ors. Vs. Premabai and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant116; ILR1987KAR1751
Doddakale Gowda, J.1. The nature of a bequest made by a father to his son, with reference to the claim of his grandsons raises a neat question of law in this appeal.2. The issue arises in this form: - One Shankar Rao' the deceased husband of plaintiff defendants-2to 5 and one Narayana Rao, who has not been heard of, for many years are the sons the first defendant. A few years after her marriage, her husband Shankar Rao died issueless. Differences having arisen between the plaintiff and defendants-1 to 5, plaintiff filed O.S. No. 20/1973 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore, for partition of her 1/6th share in Schedules-A, B and C properties alleging that schedule properties were all joint family properties, that some were ancestral and the others were acquired out of the income of joint family from trade and money sending. Subsequently, additional defendants-1 to 6 were impleaded as it was found that they were in possession of certain properties either as alliances or as mo...
Tag this Judgment!The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Kantha Chandra and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1989Kant1
ORDER1. In all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner is the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). The Respondent1 in each one of these petitions is a different person who has obtained permission to convert agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes viz., for construction of buildings. Respondents 2 to 5 are common to all these petitions. They are: The Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short the 'Tribunal') The State of Karnataka and he D.L.F. Universals Ltd., New Delhi.2. The petitioner has sought for a declaration that the provisions contained in sub-sec. (5) of S. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 964 (Karnataka Act 12 of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act') are of Art 14 of the Constitution. In addition to t is, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orders produced as Annexures-A to Y, in W.P. 19919 to 19954/82...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Water Supply and Vs. Kantha Chandra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-27-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1617
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner is The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Bangalore-(hereinafter referred to as the 'BOARD'). Respondent-1 in each one of these petitions is a different person who has obtained permission to convert agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes viz., for construction of buildings. Respondents 2 to 5 are common to all these petitions. They are : The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (for short the 'Tribunal') The State of Karnataka and the D.L.F. Universals Ltd., New Delhi.2. The petitioner has sought for a declaration that the provisions contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 12/1964) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In addition to this, the petitioner has sought for quashing the orde...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Govindaraju and Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of City of Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-16-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1570
Rama Jois, J.1. These four Writ Petitions have been referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. In the first three petitions, the petitioners who are residents of the City of Bangalore have questioned the legality of the licence issued to respondent No. 3 for construction of a commercial building consisting of a basement, ground, first, second and third floors, on the ground that it was in plain contravention of the Outline Development Plan ('the ODP' for short) and the Zoning Regulations as also the Comprehensive Development Plan ('the CDP' for short) and the Zoning Regulations annexed thereto which replaced the ODP, both promulgated under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('the Planning Act' for short) and for consequential orders. Writ Petition No. 18351 of 1986 is presented by respondent No. 3 in the aforesaid Writ Petitions praying for a declaration that permission for construction of fourth, fifth and sixth floors ...
Tag this Judgment!Ladies Corner, Bangalore Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1710; 1987(1)KarLJ402
K.A. Swami, J.1. In this contempt of Court case, the accused No. 2 is one Sri K. S. Ullasa son of K. M. Somappa, Circle Inspector of Police, Yeshwanthpur Sub-Division, Bangalore-22 (hereinafter called the accused). State of Karnataka is arrayed in the contempt petition as Accused 1. No offence of contempt is alleged against the State of Karnataka. The allegations on which the complaint of contempt was brought, briefly stated, are : that the complainant claimed to be tenant or sub-tenant in occupation of a shop in Bangalore of which the Central Muslim Association was the landlord. The complainant brought a suit in O.S. No. 3214/1982 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore, against the said landlord and sought and obtained an order of temporary injunction Dt. 4-11-1982 against the complainant's dispossession from the shop. Despite this order which was duly both to the landlord and the accused the latter in contemptuous disregard of that order, proceeded on 6-11-1982 to lock and seal the shop ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Cements Limited Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Kar)205; [1987]167ITR370(KAR); [1987]167ITR370(Karn); [1987]35TAXMAN40(Kar)
S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioner-company, an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has challenged the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 148 of the Act, proposing to reopen the assessment for the year 1977-78. The said notice is annexed to the writ petition as annexure-D. 2. The assessee's counsel, Sri G. Sarangan, has raised the following, among other grounds, while challenging the validity of the impugned notice : (i) the notice purported to be under section 147(b) of the Act is barred by time; (ii) there was no 'information' within the scope of section 147(b) for initiating action to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1977-78; (iii) the finding given by the Tribunal in the appeals for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 cannot constitute 'information' for invoking section 147(b) of the Act, and, lastly, (iv) the action initiated does not fall under section 150(1) of the Act, and hence, the notic...
Tag this Judgment!Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Siddeshwara Industries
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1989
ORDER 43 Rule 1A -- Scope -- Interim orders Lot challenged open to attack in appeal against decree.If any interim order is passed and if it is not challenged by way of revision or appeal and if ultimately an appeal is filed against the decree, then the interim order passed even though not questioned by filing an appeal or revision, could be attacked in the course of that appeal.Rule 1A of Order 43 CPC does not apply to the facts of the present cases....
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Yaragatti Vs. Vasant and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Kant186; ILR1987KAR1286; 1987(2)KarLJ9
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to be decided by a larger Bench: -'(1) Whether a revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies to the High Court from a revisional order made by a District Judge under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, as substituted by Karnataka Act 31 of 1975?(2) Whether the ruling of the Full Bench of this Court in Krishnaji Venkatesh Shirodkar v. Gurupad Shivram Kavalekar (ILR (1978) 2 Karnataka 1585) requires reconsideration in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad : [1980]3SCR32 ?'2. This petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution calling in question the legality of the order made by the District Judge under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An office objection was raised as to how in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Krishnaji Venkatesh Shi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »