Karnataka Court June 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.
Shivaswamia Vs. State Bank of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2297
Bopanna, J.This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-2-1976 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O. S. No. 337 of 1972 dismissing his suit for certain reliefs against the defendant/Bank based on the Desai Award dated 7-6-1962 passed by the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) on the disputes raised between certain Banking Companies and Corporations and their workmen. The plaintiff had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3695 of 1969 which was filed on 18-6-1969 and that petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 28-7-1972 on the following terms :'Petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions against the State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore. This Court in W.P. No. 435 of 1969 (Sri C. Sathyamurthy v. State Bank of Mysore) decided on 30-6-1971 has laid down that an order as the one in the present case cannot be interfered with by the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 22...
Govindaraja Mudaliar Vs. University of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-18-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3415
Nesargi, J.1. The defendant-appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12-8-1975 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in R.A. No. 45 of 1975 confirming the judgment and decree dated 31 7-1975 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No 341 of 1972.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in question against the defendant-appellant for declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property, for possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant appellant, for grant of past mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month amounting to Rs. 1080/- and for enquiry into future mesne profits. The defendant resisted the suit.3. The facts relied upon by the plaintiff may be narrated briefly as follows : The suit schedule property was of the ownership of one Gurumurthappa who expired on 19-5-1938 leaving behind his will dated 24-10-193. The suit property and two other properties were bequeathed by Gurumurthapp...
Rangappa Vs. Jayamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2889; 1987(2)KarLJ369
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 24-10-1986 passed by the Learned Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in O.S. No. 10/1985 declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of one half of the suit properties and refusing to grant an injunction as prayed for and also further refusing to pass a decree for Rs. 8000/- The Trial Court has held that the plaintiff and the defendant are the owners of the suit properties and each of them is entitled to share them equally.2. Having regard to the contentions urged, only two points arise for consideration. They are :1) Whether the Trial Court is justified in law in not giving effect to the will dated 10-7-1980 Ex. P-1 claimed to have been executed by Smt. Nagamma ?2) Whether the Trial Court is justified in law in not passing a decree for partition in conformity with the finding arrived at by it ?POINT NO 1 :3. The will Ex. P.1 as per the case of the plaintiff was executed by Smt. Nagamma on 10-7-1...
Anjanappa and Co. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2344
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These batches of Writ Petitions are disposed of by the following common order. The petitioners are all Excise Contractors. They are aggrieved by the amendment made to Rule 15 of the Karnataka Excise Licences(General Conditions) Rules, 1967, (hereinafter referred to as the General Conditions Rules). The amendment is effected by a Notification gazetted on 25 6 1983 which came into effect from 1-7-1983. The petitioners, in the meanwhile, had become successful bidders at the auctions held in various parts of the State of Karnataka in May or June, 1983. Prior to the coming into force of the amendment to Rule 15 of the General Conditions Rules, 1967, the rale of interest payable for rent not paid before the stipulated date namely, 10th of a month was liable to be charged with interest at 6 per cent. By the amendment effected, the rate of interest in Rule 15 of the General Conditions Rules has been raised to 18 per cent per annum. Therefore, the grievance of the...
A. Gopala Naidu Vs. Tax Recovery Officer-i and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1987
Reported in: [1987]169ITR417(KAR); [1987]169ITR417(Karn)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. The petitioner has presented these petitions praying for a declaration to the effect that the Income-tax Department must be deemed to have collected the entire rent due to the petitioner in respect of premises belonging to him from his tenant in view of the prohibitory order issued by the Department and also praying for quashing the order issued by the Tax Recovery Officer attaching two immovable properties belonging to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The father of the petitioner was an income-tax assessee. As on May 21, 1978, it appears, he was due to the Department in a sum of Rs. 17,509. A non-residential building belonging to the petitioner situate at Subhedar Chatram Road, Bangalore, had been let out to one Hayavadana Rao on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,650. A prohibitory order was issued by the Tax Recovery Officer on May 15, 1978 (vide annexure A), under rule 26(1) (iii) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. By that...
A. Gopala Naidu Vs. Tax Recovery Officer-i and Another.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)66CTR(Kar)106; [1988]169ITR417(KAR); [1988]169ITR417(Karn); [1988]35TAXMAN396(Kar)
M. RAMA JOIS J. - The petitioner has presented these petitions praying for a declaration to the effect that the Income-tax Department must be deemed to have collected the entire rent due to the petitioner in respect of premises belonging to him from his tenant in view of the prohibitory order issued by the Department and also praying for quashing the order issued by the Tax Recovery Officer attaching two immovable properties belonging to the petitioner.The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The father of the petitioner was an income-tax assessee. As on May 21, 1978, it appears, he was due to the Department in a sum of Rs. 17,509. A non-residential building belonging to the petitioner situate at Subhedar Chatram Road, Bangalore, had been let out to one Hayavadana Rao on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,650. A prohibitory order was issued by the Tax Recovery Officer on May 15, 1978 (vide annexure A), under rule 26(1) (iii) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. By that orde...
Kemwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC279; 1989(20)LC87(Karnataka); 1987(31)ELT669(Kar); 1987(2)KarLJ49
1. Notice rule was issued on the Central Government Standing Counsel Sri Shivappa. The matter is disposed of on merits after hearing both sides, after issuing rule. 2. The short question that is involved in this writ petition is about the correctness of the endorsement issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Yeswanthpur, dated 16-12-1986, as per Annexure-A. The main grievance of the petitioner is against this endorsement by which the Assistant Collector has expressed that there is no need to hear the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, before the classification list is modified. The Assistant Collector states in the said communication thus :- 'As per existing provisions of Rule 173-B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 classification list has been approved after making suitable modifications and the proper officer is empowered to modify such changes while approving as per the provisions of the said rules. Hence it is not necessary to is...
A.K. Subbaiah Vs. Ramakrishna Hegde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR227
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking a writ or order or direction declaring that the 1st respondent-Ramakrishna Hegde, Chief Minister of Karnataka, has violated the oath of office taken under Article 164(3) of the Constitution of India and a further writ that the said 1st respondent-Chief Minister stands disqualified to continue in office as Chief Minister.2. The substance or the material placed before the Court in support of the prayers aforementioned essentially rests on the findings recorded in the observations made in certain Judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court. It is contended that the 1st respondent-Chief Minister of Karnataka by showing favouritism, allotted or approved the allotment of bottling of arrack contract to a select few in whom he was interested and therefore he acted in order to favour such persons thereby committing breach of oath of office under Article 164(3) of the Constitution. The breach of course i...
H.H. Marthanda Varma and H.H. Bhupendra Narayana Singh Vs. Registrar o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1987
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas125(Kar); ILR1987KAR2257
K.B. Navdgi, J.1. Criminal Petition No. 650 of 1985 and Criminal Petition No. 651 of 1985 ar petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (``the Code' for short). They are disposed of by this common order. 2. H.H. MARTHANDA Varma, Elayaraja of Travancore, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 650 of 1985, is accused No. 3 in C.C. No. 311 of 1982 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore District, Bangalore (the trail court), whereas H.H. Bhupendra Narayan Singh Deo, Raja or Korea Ramdrug ', the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 651 of 1985, ids accused No.4 in C.C. No. 311 of 1982. The Registrar of Companies, the respondent in both the criminal petitions, lodged a complaint against M/ss Mysore Tools Ltd., 4th floor, Coffee Board Building,m No. 1, Vidhata Vedhi, Bangalore -1 (the company ) ; T.T. John,the managing director of the company ; the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 650 of 1985 ; the petition in Criminal Petition No. 651 of...
Firm of K. C. Ramaiah Vs. Kunjunny and Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR2307
Bopanna, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question touching the plea of limitation under the provisions of Section 19 of the old Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which corresponds to Section 18 of the present Limitation Act, 1963. The suit was filed on 1-7-1963 when the old Act was in force.2. The plaintiff is a firm of Commission Agents and it had filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,765-01 on a Promissory Note executed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 23-7-1954 produced as Exhibit P-1, before the Trial Court. It also claimed a further sum of Rs. 6446-99 on the basis of the accounts settled and as evidenced by the endorsement made on 6-6-1960 by defendant No. 3, who is one of the Junior Members of the 1st defendant joint family firm.3. It is not in dispute that defendant-2 was the Manager of the joint family firm and he made two endorsements on the promissory note Exhibit P-1 dated 23-7-1954. The first endorsement Exhibit P-1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »