Karnataka Court February 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.
Syndicate Bank Vs. United Commercial Bank and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas270(Kar)
1. At the stage of admission, we directed the records from the trial court to be secured. Accordingly, we had the benefit of perusing the records of the proceedings before the trial court and we have also heard learned counsel for the appellant-bank.2. The short point for consideration in the appeal is whether the appellant-bank was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 131 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short,'the Act'). The facts are not in serious controversy. Respondent No.1 - bank had made payment of Rs.50,079.04 to respondent No.3 on a cheque issued by the second respondent- customer in favour of the Aryan Brush Company. From the evidence on record, it is seen that the section respondent issued a cheque dated December 2, 1975, for a sum of Rs.579.04 in favour of one of its customers by name Aryan Brush Company. This cheque was subsequently encashed by respondent No.3 carrying on business under the name and style of Arjun Brush Company. The words and fi...
Karnataka Construction Corporation Ltd. Employees' Association Vs. Sta ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ318Kant
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. The petitioner is a trade union. It is aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the State Government bearing the date 20th May. 1987, by which it has declared that a dispute sought to be referred for adjudication is not an industrial dispute at all. 2. The facts leading to the endorsement impugned in this writ petition may be stated in brief and they are as follows: The workers of the Karnataka Construction Corporation Limited are members of the petitioner-Union. Some of the workers who were the office-bearers were allowed to attend Union work in the matter of their participation in the proceedings before the Conciliation Board and the Labour Court or Tribunal or the Government as the case may be and their wages were being paid while on such work. That came to be withdrawn on 22nd June, 1985. Therefore, the workers raised a dispute and sought reference of the dispute to the appropriate Labour Court or the Tribunal resulting in the impugned endorsement. 3. T...
K.S. Mariyappa Vs. K.T. Siddalinga Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR425; 1989(1)KarLJ150
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal is preferred by defendants 1 to 4 against the Judgment and Decree dated 4th October 1976 passed by the learned III Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, in O.S. No. 127 of 1973. The trial Court has passed the decree in the following terms:'In the result and for the foregoing reasons the suit is decreed with costs and it is declared that the decree in 0.S. No. 28/52-53 was obtained by collusion. There shall be a Preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties. The partition of the immoveable properties assessed to land revenue shall be made under this decree by the Deputy Commissioner or his Gazetted subordinate duly authorised in that regard under Section 54 C.P.C. The partition of moveables shall be effected by a Commissioner appointed in that regard. The profits due to the plaintiffs shall be ascertained in a separate enquiry under Order 18 Rule 18 C.P.C. Draw up a preliminary decree accordingly.'2. Respondents 1 to 4 are plaintiffs 1 to 4 and responden...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jevaramma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1988
Reported in: II(1988)ACC379; [1989]65CompCas592(Kar); ILR1988KAR1469
Balakrishna, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd , Mysore, against the award made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mysore District, Mysore, in W C A CR-2/86-87 dated July 13, 1987, awarding compensation of Rs 44,200.80 on account of the death of the husband of the claimant and a penalty amounting to 50% of the aforesaid compensation together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation awarded and costs of Rs 50. 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the provisions of section 95(1)(b) and section 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M V Act'), are applicable to the facts of the case and that there is no liability on the part of the insurance company to pay any compensation to the claimant in the facts and circumstances of the case. We have examined these provisions and we find that they are not attracted to the facts of this case because of the reason that the accide...
Jose Chake Manakattu Vs. the Tree Officer and Deputy Conservator of Fo ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant189; 1988(1)KarLJ380
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the following question of law arises for consideration :Whether a person who has cut the trees standing on his own land, in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act 1976 ('the Act' for short), is liable to pay the value of the trees in adition to the compounding fees payable under Cl. (a) of S. 21(l) of the Act?2. This petition has come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents. By consent of both the Counsel, it is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this order.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow. The petitioner is the owner, in possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in S. No. 103/2 measuring 8 acres 57 cents, situate at Kalmanje Village, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. After securing a licence for raising rubber plantation from Rubber Board (vide Annexure-A) he cut the trees grown on the land. Fire-wood secured from cutting the trees had been stacked on t...
Gadag Co-operative Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1489; 1989(3)KarLJ212
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. Cr.P.214/85 by the three accused persons is directed against the order dated 7-2-1985 passed by the Special Judge, Belgaum, in S.C.38/85 rejecting the application filed by the accused under Section 167(5).Cr.R.P. 623/87 by the State is directed against the order dated 11-8-87 passed by the Special Judge, Gulbarga, in S.C. 13/87, discharging the accused.Cr.R.P. 624/87 by the State is directed against the order dated 20-8-87 passed by the Special Judge, Gulbarga, in S.C. 19/87 discharging the accused.Cr.R.P. 625/87 by the State is directed against the order dated 27-8-87 passed by the Special Judge, Gulbarga, in S.C. 18/87, discharging the accused.Cr.R.P. 626/87 by the State is directed against the order dated 27-7-87 passed by the Special Judge, Gulbarga, in S.C.17/87, discharging the accused.Cr.R.P.627/87 by the State is directed against the order dated 28-7-87 passed by the Special Judge, Gulbarga, in S.C. 15/87, discharging the accused.Cr.R.P.628/87 by the State i...
Cheepoorappanavara Munisami Vs. Gangamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR762; 1989(1)KarLJ289
Hiremath, J.1. Defendants-1, 2, 4 and 5 in O.S.No. 358/1969 in the trial Court are the appellants herein. As defendant No. 5 died, in the meanwhile, his legal representatives are brought on record. Plaintiffs are widow and sons of Narasimhaiah and the suit was for declaration of their title to the suit property measuring 18 acres and 18 guntas of Ottaragunta village in Bangarpet Taluk. The deceased Narasimhaiah and Munisami were full brothers. But, plaintiffs contended that Narasimhaiah was the absolute owner of this property and it was his self-acquired property. Narasimhaiah died about 7 years before the suit and Munisamappa his brother without any right, title or interest in the suit property had alienated the same and this came to knowledge of plaintiffs only from others and he had no right to sell the suit land. Because the defendants were interfering with their possession, the plaintiffs were compelled to file this suit for the aforesaid relief.2. The present appellants filed a j...
Vimala Bai Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR648; 1988(3)KarLJ579
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Petitioner challenges the detention of her husband under the provisions of Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1985) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The District Magistrate, Dharwad, made the impugned order which was approved by the State Government on 27-10-1987. The counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate states that the detenu was taken into custody on 16-10-1987 and ever since then, he is under detention.2. The grounds of detention (Annexure-CI) refer to several instances of the detenu's alleged activities of conducting gambling, Mutka and receiving and disposing of theft properties. Several instances of prosecutions launched against the detenu in connection with these activities are cited in the grounds of detention. Out of the ten instances, one ended in the acquittal of the dete...
Town House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Special Deputy Commi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Kant312; ILR1988KAR579; 1988(2)KarLJ510
Premchand Jain, C.J.1. The question of law that needs determination by us is in the following terms:'Whether a Division Bench hearing Writ Appeal against an order of single Judge has power to remand the case to the single Judge concerned or not?'. -2. W. P. 5540 of 1975 was rejected by a learned single Judge of this Court on 8th Jan 1976. Writ Appeal 35 of 1976 was preferred against that order which came up for hearing before a Division Bench-of this Court. Without going into the merits of the case, on the points that arose for consideration, the appellate Bench passed the following order'For the reasons stated above, we set aside the order under appeal and remand W.P.5540/75 for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the appellant to impaled the State Government and the owner of the land. Writ Appeal allowed. No costs,Sd/- K. Bhimiah, Judge. Sd/-S.M.Sait,Judge. 3. Earlier in this Court a question had arisen regarding the power-of the Division Bench to remand...
Thimmappa Basappa Kurahatti Vs. Somappa Venkappa Nagnur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1654; 1988(1)KarLJ402
Shyamasundar, J.1. This Miscellaneous Second Appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 91 of 1981 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Gadag, aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Gadag dated 20-6-1986 made in R.A. No. 11 of 1983 allowing the said appeal and setting aside out-right the judgment and decree made by the learned Munsiff in his favour in the aforesaid suit O.S. 91 of 1981 and further making a remit of the entire case back to the learned Munsiff for a fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to both parties to lead evidence if any.2. It has to be mentioned, the plaintiff had sued the defendant in O.S. 91 of 1981 calling upon him to convey back to him a piece of property that had been alienated in favour of the defendant under a sale deed dated 7-7-1978 for consideration. The plaintiff alleged that at the time of the transaction it was understood and infact there was an agreement that subsequently the properties should be reconveyed to him subject...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »