Karnataka Court December 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.
Ashok Vs. Tawanappa Siddappa Jakkannavara
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR123; 1988(3)KarLJ562
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. All these appeals are by the contesting respondents in the Writ Petitions, whose elections as Pradhana or Upa-Pradhana of respective Mandal Panchayats (for short 'the Panchayats or the Panchayat') were set aside, with a direction to declare the results of the respective elections afresh, consequent upon quashing the nominations made to the Panchayats, by the Adhyakshas of Zilla Parishads, under Section 5(3) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (referred as 'the Act').2. The main question to be decided is whether declaration of the result of an election to the Office of Pradhana or Upapradhana can be set aside in a Writ Petition, without the aggrieved party resorting to an Election Petition as provided by the Act and the relevant Rules called 'The Karnataka Mandal Panchayats (Election of Pradhana and Upapradhana) Rules, 1987' (for short as 'Election Rules').3. The elections to Panchayats were...
Dada Jinnappa Khot Vs. Shivalingappa Ganapati Bellanki
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR993; 1989(1)KarLJ377
Shyamasundar, J.1. This appeal Is by the plaintiff who chases a set of concurrent decrees against him with both the Courts having refused to declare his title to a small bit of property measuring 16 guntas in relation to which both sides have been at issue all these years in a litigation which appears to have commenced as far back as the year 1967.2. In this Court the questions of law that have been formulated for consideration are:(i) Whether on facts held proved by the lower Appellate Court an inference that the possession of the plaintiff-appellant in regard to the subject matter of the suit amounts to adverse possession?(ii) Whether the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 16-12-1967 or 4-5-1970?3. Having heard Mr. Ajit J. Gunjal for the appellant and Mr. Kamate for the respondent, it seems to me a finding on the second point is likely to give a quietus to the litigation even without expressing myself on the first point and, therefore, it is I propose to address myself to po...
Joseph D'Souza Vs. Prescilla Rodrigues
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1988
Reported in: I(1990)DMC151; 1988(3)KarLJ70
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This matter coming up for orders on I A. No. II, revision petition itself is taken up for hearing by consent of Counsel for parties and disposed of by following order.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have been heard. The facts are these :--Petitioner Joseph D'Souza filed a petition under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act seeking decree for judicial separation inter alia on the ground that the respondent-Prescilla Rodrigues had left him since 24-10-1983 and despite a number of attempts made by him, she had not rejoined his company as his legally wedded wife. He also alleged that he issued a registered notice through this Counsel which also did not yield any result. Therefore, he presented the petition seeking a decree for judicial separation. From the averments in the petition, it is clear that the petitioner and respondent lived as husband and wife only for a period of 5 months.3. The petition was opposed by the respondent justifying by...
R. Bhardwaj Vs. Chief Commissioner (Admn.) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)78CTR(Kar)172; [1990]182ITR149(KAR); [1990]182ITR149(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has questioned the warrant issued under section 132 of the Income-tax Act on the ground that the same could not have been issued by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax who has no jurisdiction over the petitioner. This position is factually conceded by learned senior standing counsel for the Department. Hence, the proceedings conducted pursuant to that warrant stand quashed. 2. During the pendency of this petition, an application (I.A. 1. ) has been filed claiming damages. It appears that the petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 40 of 1975, on the file of City Civil Judge, Court Hall No. 17, Bangalore, for similar relief. Inasmuch as the petitioner can pursue the remedy claimed in I.A. 1. in that suit, it is unnecessary to entertain this I.A. 1. It is dismissed. 3. The petitioner has made several allegations of mala fides against respondent No. 2. Inasmuch as I have quashed the impugned proceedings on another ground, it is...
Shantha Kumar Vs. Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-03-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2518
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. A victim of motor accident, who lost both his legs, is the petitioner in this case. He is a resident of Kolar and he is a merchant. The petitioner was in need of parking space for his car and, therefore, approached the City Municipal Council, Kolar, for the lease of a vacant land measuring 15' x 211/2' located near the Octroi Office. Spot inspection was conducted and, ultimately, the Municipal Council found that there was no objection from any quarters for leasing out the area to the petitioner. Thereafter, a registered lease deed came to be executed in favour of the Municipal Council, Kolar, by the petitioner on 25-5-1980 on a ground rent of Rs. 35/- per month in respect of the leased area of 15' x 211/2'. As mentioned in the agreement, the petitioner deposited one year's rent in advance. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for grant of licence and also for a sanctioned plan from the City Municipal Council for the purpose of constructing a garage i...
Gadigeppa Mahadevappa Chikkumbi Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Kant2; 1989(1)KarLJ3
ORDER1. This writ petitioner has a chequered career, inasmuch as on two prior occasions, he had entered the portals of this Court inquest of justice, the cases being W.P. No. 24491/1982 and W.P. No. 2843/1976. On both occasions, the Court had allowed the writ petitions remitting the cases back for enquiry with a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for a fair hearing of his objections to the acquisition of what was left out of his original holding devoted to agriculture.2. What is material for deciding the fate of this case is whether the petitioner himself would be rendered a landless destitute if the acquisition of his land is upheld. The sad part of the story of this forlorn agriculturist is that he has already been relieved of agricultural holding to the extent of 2 acres and 30 guntas by virtue of an earlier acquisition for similar purpose of grant of vacant sites to the rural house-less among weaker sections. As is apparent from the award of the Assistant Commissioner, Savanu...
Associated Electro Ceramics Vs. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: [1993]201ITR501(KAR); [1993]201ITR501(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petition filed an application under section 119(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Income-tax Officer to allow their claim for losses, unabsorbed depreciation and relief by way of investment allowance pertaining to the assessment year 1977-78. The application was disposed of by the Board stating as follows : 'The Ministry of Law has advised that section 119(2)(b) would not cover the case of a belated return on the basis of which loss for the purpose of carrying forward has to be determined and that matter is regulated by section 139, 72, 74 and 157. Section 119(2)(b) speaks of an 'application' or a 'claim' and not a 'return' to be filed beyond time. In this view of the matter, the Board regret their inability to interfere in the matter and to accede to the request of the petitioner. The Petitioner may be informed accordingly.' 2. Aggrieved by this decision of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the petitioner has approached this court. ...
Gadigeppa Mahadevappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR53
Balakrishna, J 1. 'But as system of case-law develops, the sordid controversies litigants are the stuff out of which great and shining truths will ultimately be shaped. The accidental and the transitory will yield the essential and permanent'. Benjamin CardozoThis Writ Petitioner has a chequrred career, in as much as on two prior occasions, he had entered the portals of this Court in quest for justice, the cases being, W.P.No. 24491/1982 and W.P.No. 2843/1976. On both the occasions, the Court had allowed the Writ Petitions remitting the cases back for enquiry with a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for the fair hearing of his objections to the acquisition of what was left out of his original holding devoted to agriculture.2. What is material for deciding the fate of this case is whether the petitioner himself would be rendered a landless destitute if the acquisition of land is upheld. The sad part of the story of this forlorn agriculturist is that he has already been relieved o...
Bombay Swadeshi Stores Vs. State Bank of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2506
ORDERRama Jois, J. 1. The petitioner M/s. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd., has presented this petition, praying for quashing the order of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter for short called the 'Act'), dismissing the respondent's appeal and confirming the order of the Competent Authority and the Estate Officer of the State Bank of Mysore, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the premises belonging to the first respondent-State Bank of Mysore.2. The facts of the case in brief are as follow: The petitioner is a tenant in a portion of a multi-storeyed building belonging to the first respondent State Bank of Mysore. The premises was given on lease to the petitioner for a period of 15 years with effect from 1-7-1970. The period of lease came to an end with effect from 1-7-1985. Thereafter a notice was issued by the Estate Officer of the Sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›