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.
B.S. Suresh Vs. B.S. Jagadish
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-06-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1249
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter has come up for admission after notice.2. This is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 3-2-1988 made by the Civil Judge, Chickmagalur, in Original Suit No. -- of 1988. The order came to be passed on the office objection that the suit was not properly valued.3. The petitioners - plaintiffs filed suit against the respondents - defendants for rendering accounts in respect of the income from three bits of coffee estates left in the management of the defendants for convenience having obtained the said coffee estates to their share under a registered partition deed. The petitioners have stated that the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction was as given in the valuation slip enclosed alongwith the plaint. In the valuation slip, the following is stated:'The suit is for rendition of accounts of the income in the suit land payable to plaintiffs and for a decree on the sum...
Zia-ur-rahaman Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR799
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Motor Vehicle bearing registration No. MNP 6639 was registered in the name of one S.A. Pasha as a tourist vehicle by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Manipur with a seating capacity of 34+1. The petitioner purchased the said vehicle on 5-4-1984. Change of address of the registered owner was effected by the R.T.O. Bangalore under Section 30 of the Act with effect from 20-8-1983, and the seating capacity was also altered from 34+1 to 35+2. After the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner the transfer was recorded in the Registration Certificate as per order dated 5-4-1984 made by the R.T.O. Bangalore West.By order dated 23-8-1983 the R.T.O. Bangalore permitted alteration of the seating capacity from 35+2 to 34+1 in accordance with the Government Notification dated 5-4-1976 since it was covered by an All India Tourist permit. The alteration was permitted with the following condition:'Exempted from the provisions of Rule 216 of K.M.V. Rules so long as th...
Sadashivachari Vs. Sri Chandramouleswara Swamy Temple Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-05-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1573; 1988(3)KarLJ106
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J. 1. The tenants are the revision petitioners. The respondent in all these cases is the landlord. It is a Trust called Sri Chandramouleshwara Swamy Temple Trust, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9. On behalf of the Trust, the Secretary filed eviction petitions in H.R.C. 123, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130 and 132 of 1981. Eviction was soughtunder Clauses (h) and (j) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short). In some matters, eviction was also sought under Clause (p) of Section 21 (1) of the Act, The learned Judge on recording evidence has passed an order of eviction in respect of all the tenements. In these petitions, learned Advocates appearing for the tenants-petitioners submitted that eviction petitions filed by the Secretary were not maintainable. Elaborating their arguments, they drew my attention to a Scheme framed in O.S.No. 41 of 1957. It is not disputed that the management and administration of the temple is according to the scheme fram...
S. Krishna and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant291
ORDER1. These petitions raise an interesting point touching the Constitutional guarantee to the petitioners enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are eking out their livelihood by guiding the visitors to the Mysore Palace which, a few years ago, belonged exclusively o late Maharaja of Mysore. It transpires that after his death, certain changes have taken place as regards the management of the Palace. Certain portions of the Palace are still private property of the late Maharaja and his heirs and certain portions have been taken over by the State Government. But all the same the fact remains that these petitioners were acting as private guides to the visitors who visited Mysore for sight seeing.3. The grievance of the petitioners is that by an executive order which is produced at Annexure 'E' in the writ petition, they have been restrained from functioning as Tourists guides to the Palace and that order vide Annexure 'D' is wit...
B.V. Malla Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR60
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. As this petition can be disposed of finally, rule is issued and it is heard for final disposal.2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:i) declare that the circular dated 28-12-1987 bearing No. RD 159 LGT Annexure-A by the first respondent as ultra vires the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964;ii) declare that Endorsements Annexure-B and C dated 2-5-1988 and 26-5-1988 respectively are illegal, unconstitutional and issued without jurisdiction;iii) Issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of mandamus for bearing the first respondent to give effect to Circular Annexure-A;iv) issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to direct all its subordinate Officers not to act upon Circular Annexure-A;v) Pass any other appropriate order in the circumstances of the case including an o...
N.A. Nagendrappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR324
ORDERBopanna, J.1. The facts in this petition are not in serious controversy since the same could be ascertained from the relevant Gazette Notifications published by the authorities The petitioner is a voter in the Mandal Panchayat Constituency of Thuruvanur in Chitradurga District. It is common ground that the electoral roll of Chitradurga Zilla Parishad Constituency is also the electoral roll for the Thuruvanur Mandal Panchayat Constituency under Section 9 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Tatuka Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (in short the Act). It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was eligible to vote in the elections to the Mandal Panchayat and also to contest for the Mandal Panchayat from the said Constituency. The elections to the Mandal Panchayat for the first time were held after the Act came into force.The first Notification under Section 5(1) of the Act was issued by the State Government notifying the number of Members of each M...
Anandappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-04-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR983; 1989(1)KarLJ94
ORDERK.A. Swami, J1. A preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue payable to the Government was passed in O.S.326/1962 by the Munsiff Court, Bagalkot. This preliminary decree was sent to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 54 of the CPC for effecting partition in terms of the decree. The Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot effected the partition by the order dated 22-5-1986 in No. BPD CR 85/86 (Annexure-A).2.1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner the petitioner and respondents 8 and 9 preferred an appeal No. 707/86 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).2.2. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 27-7-1987, has held that an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner passed under Section 54 of CPC lies to the Deputy Commissioner and not to the Tribunal. Accordingly it has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, it is the vali...
B.M. Gangadhariah Vs. H.D. Devegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant294
ORDER1. In this petition presented by the petitioner praying for the issue of writ of quo warranto against the respondent, who is the Minister of Public Works and Irrigation of the State of Karnataka, the following question arises for consideration :Whether this Court has jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of quo warranto on the allegation that person who happens to be a Member of the Council of Ministers of the State had committed a breach of his oath which he had taken under Art. 164(3) of the Constitution of India ?2. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate of this Court. The respondent is a Member of the Council of Ministers of the State. He took his oath of office and became a Minister on 16th Aug 1988. The petitioner has stated that the respondent was a Member of the Council of Ministers on an earlier occasion also and during the period when he was in office he had given recommendatory letters to several persons recommending to the Chairman of ...
Raitabandu Gramodyoga Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1371
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. The State of Karnataka is a necessary party. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to implead the State of Karnataka as respondent-3. Cause title be amended. Sri Udayashankar, learned Government Pleader who appears for respondent-2 also to appear for respondent-3.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 24-7-1987 passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sagar (for short 'Market Committee') and also the communication dated 29-7-1987 bearing No-334/87-88 Annexure-C issued by the very same Market Committee. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that he has not incurred a disqualification as specified in Rule 77 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The petitioner has also sought for quashing the order dated 21-4-1988 passed in Appeal No. CR 36/37 by the 2nd respondent. By way of amendment, the ...
Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1501; 1989(1)KarLJ306
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23rd February, 1988 in regard to the maintainability of the suit and payment of Court fee arising out of the plea taken in the written statement by the defendant, the suit was not maintainable as well as the Court fee paid was Inadequate.2. The facts leading to the impugned order may be stated briefly and they are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that certain bill submitted by the 1st defendant-Karnataka Electricity Board through its Assistant Executive Engineer, City Division No. 2, Belgaum, was a nullity and therefore not enforceable. The plaintiff a consumer of electrical energy supplied by the 1st defendant-Board valued his relief at Rs. 1,000/- and paid Court fee thereon in terms of Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The defendants raised the two pleas set-out earlier in the course of this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›