Karnataka Court October 1988 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.
P.A. Kannan Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant285; 1988(3)KarLJ95
ORDER1. In all these petitions, the petitioners who are dealers in fire-works, have questioned the legality of the orders made by the Commissioner of Police, City of Bangalore, and the District Magistrate of the concerned district requiring the petitioners to locate their shops for selling fire-works in temporary structures to be located at the specified open spaces.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow: All along both in the City of Bangalore and elsewhere, the dealers in fire-works were having their shops in their respective shops located in residential areas or in shopping centres. In the year 1979 there was a huge fire accident in the fire-works shops located in the busiest place in the City of Bangalore near Krishnarajendra Market, which resulted in huge loss of property and life. Thereafter, on 11-4-1980 the Government addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police and others. The relevant portion of that letter reads:' xxx xxxSub: Fire Accident at S. K. R. Market B...
M. Venkataramaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1264; 1989(1)KarLJ107
K.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:'(i) Call for the records relating to Annexures A, C and E, peruse the same and set them aside as arbitrary and illegal and;(ii) declare and strike down as unconstitutional Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1966, which confers unguided' and arbitrary powers on the Deputy Commissioner;(iii) Issue a consequential direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and Returning Officer in the instant case to re-notify the constituencies for elections to the 3rd respondent Market Committee and proceed with the holding of elections, in accordance with law.'2. As far as relief Nos. 1 and 3 concerned, they do not survive because the election itself is post-pond throughout the State on the ground that the Agriculturists constituencies are not properly framed. If there is any grievance with regar...
Manohar Tulajaram Vs. Vallabha Ramagopal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR968
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J1. This is a revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C. against concurrent findings of fact. Petitioner is a tenant and he is a tailor, by profession. Respondent-landlord sought eviction of the premises under Clauses (a) and (h) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. Tenancy is admitted. The landlord alleged that tenant is not regular in payment of rents; he had to pay arrears of Rs. 290/- upto 1-12-1979, and subsequently he had not paid the tenants at all. Landlord gave notice on 17-11-1980; though it was served, it was not replied.2. The tenant contended that the premises are leased on annual rental basis. In practice the landlord, who used to get his clothes stiched, was adjusting the tailoring charges, towards the rents. He alleged that on 24-4-1980, he had handed over Rs. 200/- to Ramshetji; on 14-7-1980, he had handed over Rs. 200/- to Mota Shetji; on 10-11-1980, he had handed over Rs. 400/-to Mota Shetji; similarly he had given Rs. 100/- to Saty...
Balakrishna Narayan Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1887; 1989(1)KarLJ213
ORDERVenkatachala, J. 1. A short question which arises for consideration in these Revision Petitions, is -'Whether the Judgment-debtor's liability to pay interest under an award in a land acquisition case ceases when once the amount due under such award is deposited in reference Court though the Judgment-debtor had obtained stay of execution of such award by the decree-holder?'2. The facts are briefly these:Petitioner in each of these revision petitions had got an award in his/her favour from the Court of Civil Judge, Sirsi, under which the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer was liable to pay the compensation amount including interest as provided therefor till the date of payment or deposit of such compensation amount in Court. Respondent deposited the compensation amount payable in each of the awards in the reference Court in two instalments. The amount deposited in the first instalment was drawn by the decree-holders (petitioners here). But, the second instalment deposited c...
Channabasamma Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1285; 1989(3)KarLJ485
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 26-2-1976 passed by the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi and the order dated 9-11-1978 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Appeal No. 1365/1976 produced as Annexure-A and B respectively.2. Annexure-A is an endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi dated 26-2-1976 stating that the application filed by Smt. Channabasamma, the mother of the petitioner-Sri. B.F Bangarappa was rejected by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, in his No. LND(1) SR 18/72-73 dated 18-11-1975 and as such pursuant to the Government Circular No. RDK 3/LGW 75 dated 26-11-1975, the proceeding for eviction would be initiated against Smt. Channabasamma.3. In view of the information contained in the aforesaid endorsement that the application filed by Smt. Channabasamma was rejected on 18-11-1975, an appeal was preferred b...
R. Narayanaswami Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1014
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. Sri Udayashankar, learned Government Pleader has secured the records and instructions and an official is also deputed by the 1st respondent to give instructions to the learned Government Pleader.2. As this petition can be disposed of on a short point, Rule is Issued and it is heard for final disposal because of the urgency involved in the petition in as much as the election from the Agriculturists' Constituencies of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Doddaballapur is scheduled to take place on 6-11-1988 as per the calendar of events dated 23-9-1988 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District as per Annexure-B.3. The petitioners 1 to 7 are the voters in the Agriculturists' Constituencies; Petitioner-7, it is stated, is a sitting member of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Doddaballapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Market Committee'). None of the petitioners has filed the nomination paper.As per Section 14 of the Karnataka Agricu...
Shri Shri Vidyapayonidhi theertha Sreepadangalavaru Vs. G.V.R. Achar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1783; 1989(2)KarLJ21
ORDERRajendra Babu, J1. This revision petition arises out of miscellaneous proceedings filed by the respondents under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention raised by the trial Court was that the Institution in respect of which reliefs under Section 92 C.P.C. were sought for being a Muzrai Institution, and the allegations in the proposed plaint being the matters falling within the scope of Sections 26 and 27 of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 ('Act' for short), in view of Sections 40 and 40A of the Act the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. This objection was overruled and against that order this revision petition is filed.2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court gave a categorical finding that the institution was a Muzrai Institution and was covered by Sections 26 and 27 of the Act. However it held that remedies both under the Act as well as Section 92 C.P.C. were avai...
M. Muniyappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR615; 1989(3)KarLJ254
ORDERBopanna, J1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order since certain identical points arise for consideration in all these petitions.2, In Writ Petition No. 9478 of 1988, petitioners who are students and have passed the S.S.L.C. Examination have challenged the impugned order in so far as it relates to the minimum qualification prescribed by the State Government for admission to the Teachers Certificate Higher Course (in short TCH course).In Writ Petitions Nos. 9461 and 9462 of 1988, petitioners are unaided institutions and they have challenged the impugned order in so far as it relates to the minimum qualification prescribed for the students who are desirous of joining the TCH Course,In Writ Petitions Nos. 11287 to 11291 of 1988, petitioners are unaided institutions and they have challenged the impugned orders in so far as they relate to the minimum qualification prescribed for admission to the TCH Course and also the allocation of seats to the said course.Petitioners in W...
Laxminarayan Vs. Ramaswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1158; 1989(1)KarLJ28
ORDERNavadgi, J.1. This is a Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) and is directed against the order dated 4-3-1988 made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 62/85 on his file. By the order impugned herein, the learned Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition and confirmed the order dated 31-1-1985 made by the learned J.M.F.C. Sedam, in C.C. No. 153/3/81 on his file.2. The matter is in the orders' list. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, who was requested to take notice of the petition and assist the Court. The record is perused.3. Few facts that need to be mentioned to dispose of the petition are these:The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 6 herein were the complainant and A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6 respectively In the Trial Court. They will be hereinafter referred to as such.The com...
Popular Automobiles Vs. N. Veeraswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-07-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1555
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. The petition is directed against the order of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, dated 3-12-1984 passed in H.R.C.No. 614 of 1982 ordering the eviction of the petitioner.2. The facts material to the case are as follows:The petitioner is a tenant who is in occupation of the entire property bearing No. 48, Mavalli Tank Bund Road, Corporation Division No. 27), Bangalore, admeasuringEast to West 280+293' and North to South 93'6'+ 135'2 2consisting of a building and vacant space within the said boundaries. The petitioner became a tenant by virtue of a lease from one Rajagopal. The building portion within the said premises actually measures 127'5' in length and about 45' in width. It consists of the ground floor and the first floor. According to the petitioner, the employees of the petitioner Firm (M/s Popular Automobiles) together with their families have been residing in the said building. The lease is in existence since over 38 years. The respondent is state...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »