Karnataka Court September 1987 Judgments
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Gurappa Sangappa Katageri and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: [1990]69CompCas436(Kar)
Muralidher Rao, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff, Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation', arising out of Long Cause Suit No. 233 of 1961 on the file of the Second Additional Munsiff, Hubli. The Corporation filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 6,046.65 alleging that the said sum is due from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 after adjusting the amounts paid by them. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 executed a simple mortgage deed on October 30, 1953, in four of the then United Karnataka Insurance Co. Ltd., Dharwar, for a sum of Rs. 8,000. It was agreed that the amount will carry interest at 6% per annum and the loan was repayable by monthly installments of Rs. 150 towards the principal and interest commencing from December 1, 1953 ; in default of payment of any six installments, the principal due on that date along with interest becomes payable. It was stated that after settlement of accounts, it was found that a sum of Rs. 4,882.53 was due to the Corporation calcul...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sathyanarayana Singh and Brothers Vs. the Karnataka State Transport ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant275; ILR1987KAR3315; 1988(1)KarLJ266
Bopanna, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of My Lord the Chief Justice and Venkatesh, J. has referred the following question for the opinion of Full Bench.'Whether a permit granted in violation of the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, can be validated solely on the ground that the operator has operated the stage carriage services on the route for a long period and that interference with such unlawful grant on a hypertechnical ground would not be in public interest ''2. The facts leading to this reference are succinctly stated in the order of reference made by the Division Bench. Therefore, it is not necessary to burden the record by repeating them in our order.3. The permits in question which were the subject-matter of challenge before the learned single Judge were admittedly granted in violation of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act'). But, they were sought to be validated on ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Murthy Vs. Shatrugnaiah Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3367
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The appellant was the petitioner in W.P.No. 19578/82. He challenged the order of the 3rd respondent (Rent & Accommodation Controller) as affirmed by the 4th respondent (Special Dy. Commissioner). By the impugned order, the premises in question was allotted to the 2nd respondent. 1st respondent is a rival claimant to the title of the premises.2. Appellant claims title under a will left by one Seethamma. 1st respondent traces his title through the will of one Rama Setty. According to 1st respondent, Seethamma had only a limited interest in the premises and the ownership vested in Rama Setty. It is unnecessary to go into this question, as it is outside the purview of the present proceedings.3. Proceedings under Section 4 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'), were initiated by the 3rd respondent, on the basis of a letter written by one Narayana Setty, stating that, be was a tenant of the premises and that he vacated it. Similar...
Tag this Judgment!Thayappa Vs. Aswathanarayanappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-28-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3710
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The appellant Thayappa who was defendant No. 1 in the trial Court is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. 6 of 1976 on the file of the then Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, The judgment and decree is dated 9-12 1977.* R.F.A. No. 191 of 1978 dated 28th September 198(sic)2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-Aswathanarayanappa and his cousins Smt. Ankamma and Smt. Nagamma who were the daughters of his pre-deceased uncle, the brother of his father The suit was for partition and possession of the suit schedule properties which he claimed were joint-family properties of the joint family. They alleged that one Koogur Munishamappa was the propositus and he had two sons Koogur Venkatappa and Koogur Nagappa. Kugoor Munishamappa, the Propositus, died long ago. Kugoor Venkatarpa died some five years before the filing of the suit. The other son of Koogur Munishamappa, that is, Koogur Nagappa also died long prior to the filing of the suit. Koogur...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatraman Subray Raysad Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR449; 1988(1)KarLJ222
ORDERBopanna, J.1. These 2 Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order since the parties are same in both these petitions and the subject matter of dispute is more or less the same in both these petitions.2. In W.P.No. 2595 of 1987 the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to hold fresh election consequent on the order of the Divisional Commissioner produced as Annexure 'C' in the Writ Petition. By this order the Divisional Commissioner had set aside order of the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, dated 24-12-1986 made in pursuance of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (in short the Act).3. In Writ Petition No. 8977 of 1977 the petitioners who are the successful candidates in the election to the Mandal Panchayats of Sugavi and Gudnapur after the Deputy Commissioner made the declaration constituting the Mandal for Sirsi Taluk pursuant to the power confe...
Tag this Judgment!S.S. Ambe Vs. Eskaylab Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1979
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff. Itarises in the following circumstances:The plaintiff was an employee of defendant-2 - Eskaylab Limited. Heresigned from the employment on 30-4-1980 allegedly on account of someinjury he suffered to his toes. He was paid a sum of Rs. 3,202-50 asgratuity under the Scheme sponsored by the employer defendant-2, butthe plaintiff refused to receive the same. The plaintiff learnt thatother employees of defendant-2 had been paid more and, therefore, heentered into correspondence with defendant-2. He claimed that he wasentitled to the maximum gratuity payable, namely, Rs. 30,000/- onaccount of his long service of 22 years which was unblemished. Nothaving received proper reply to his notice issued to defendant-2, hepresented the suit.2. The defendants through defendant-2 resisted the claim. It wascontended by them that the Scheme governing the payment of gratuity tothe plaintiff did not allow any amount other t...
Tag this Judgment!Manchalal and anr. Vs. Shah Manikchand and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Kant221; ILR1987KAR3568
Nesargi, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal.2. Respondents plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 157/74 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore City, claiming a decree in a sum of Rs. 3 1,500/- made up as follows:i) Advance paid to the defendants as per the agreement - Rs. 25,000/-ii) Damages Rs. 5,000/-iii) Interest from 18-9-1973 to 18-3-1974 Rs. 1,500/-3. The substantial facts are not in dispute. The defendants are the owners of the property mentioned in the schedule. An agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants on 8-10-1973 as per Exhibit P-7. On 17-9-1973 the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 24,000/- by cheque on Karnataka Bank and Rs. 1,000/- in cash to the defendants as part of the consideration. As per the terms of Exhibit P-7, the sale transaction was to be completed within two months from 18-10-1973. The remaining two terms, which are in dispute, are that in case the plaintiffs failed to perform their part of the contract, the amount of advance was to...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimha Shastry Vs. Mangesha Devaru
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1987
Reported in: ILR1988KAR554
Hiremath, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in R.A.No. 33 of 1976, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, reversing the judgment and decree of the Court of Munsiff, Buntwal, South Kanara in Original Suit No. 170 of 1973, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit land especially on the portion to the west of rain water channel called 'kani'.2. The plaintiff-appellant brought this simple suit for injunction alleging that he purchased the suit land from defendant-1 under a registered sale deed dated 16-11-1938 and at the time of the purchase the extent of this A schedule property was not clearly known, the approximate extent was noted in the sale deed but, the boundaries were specifically shown to identify the property and the boundaries have been clearly stated in the sale deed. While there is no dispute with regard to other thre...
Tag this Judgment!Nagamma Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: [1990]68CompCas545(Kar); 1987(3)KarLJ293
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In this writ petition in which the petitioner has sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation to make payment pursuant to the two policies which had been taken by the husband of the petitioner during his life time, the following two question of law arise for consideration : (1) Whether in view of section 45 of the Life Insurance Act, 1938, the Life Insurance Corporation cannot repudiate the claim under a life insurance policy after the expiry of two years from the date of its issue, even if it has in its possession evidence to prove that the policy-holder had suppressed material information which he ought to have disclosed or had made deliberate false statement in respect of a material matter and (2) If the repudiation of the claim under a life insurance policy by the Corporation, is on the ground that the policy-holder had suppressed material information which he ought to have disclosed or on a material matter, on the basis of...
Tag this Judgment!Parasmal Vs. Krishnappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-18-1987
Reported in: ILR1987KAR3580
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who has been no suited on the ground that he did not have a valid money lenders' licence as required by the provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act on the relevant date, namely, 14-6-1971, the date on which the suit pronote was executed.2. That he did not produce a valid licence obtained under the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, Act 12 of 1962, for the period from 1st January, 1971 to 31st December, 1971 is not in dispute. At an earlier point of time, this Court gave sufficient time to the appellant-plaintiff to produce the licence for the aforementioned period, but it turns out that the relevant books have been lost by the concerned office and not even a certified copy of such a licence is available now for production. The fact that an endorsement is issued that the original registers of licences for the years 1970 and 1971 are lost cannot lead to an inference that the appellant had a licence for the relevant period, name...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »