Karnataka Court May 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.
Ganapathi Ramachandra Hegde Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Transport , ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant123; 1988(2)KarLJ318
ORDER1. The material facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner is the registered owner of - motor vehicle bearing No. GDT 7-361. This was purchased by the petitioner from its former owner in December 1978. Prior to the purchase, the vehicle had been registered in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. Thereafter, the petitioner brought the vehicle into the State of Karnataka. The description of the vehicle is that it is a 1970 model Tata Dumper Lorry with double chassis with steel body. The vehicle also had a hydraulic jack. On account of the total failure of the jack and its operation, the vehicle could not be utilised as a dumper and, therefore, the petitioner converted the dumper lorry into a lorry with a single chassis and wooden body devoid of the jack. This was done by the petitioner after applying for permission on 12-12-1978 to respondent-2 for transfer of the vehicle to his name together with an application for permission to alter the dumper lorry into an open body...
Sanulla Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-31-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3316
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. These petitions are connected. Hence they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The land in question viz., S.No. 50/1 of Uruduve Paisari land in Negalli Karkalli village of Somwarpet Taluk measures 47 acres 72 cents. The petitioners made applications for grant of an extent of 4 acres each in the said survey number before the Tahsildar, Somwarpet under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Land Grant Rules'). The Tahsildar, after due enquiry by the order dated 16-8-1976 granted 4 acres to each of the petitioners herein except the petitioner in W.P.No. 10210/80 who was granted 5 acres on 23-5-77.3. Pursuant to the grant, there was a measurement and the area granted to each of the petitioners was identified. Saguvali Chits were issued to the petitioners on 1-6-1977. The case of the petitioners is that they were also put in possession of the respective areas granted to them under the Land Grant...
Narayana Raju Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR376
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. These appeals are by the Writ Petitioners, whose Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. ILR 1987 KAR 3008 The petitioners challenged the land acquisition proceedings by questioning the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the Declaration made under Section 6(1) thereof.2. Petitioners, assert that they are the owners of various lands sought to be acquired for the benefit of Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., (referred hereinafter as 'the Society'). By a Notification dated 30-5-1983 published in the Gazette dated 16-6-1983, the State Government notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as in force in Karnataka by the amendment made by the Karnataka Act 17/1961, that 'the lands specified in the schedule to the notification are likely to be needed for the public purpose to wi(sic) for the Members of the Vijaya Bank Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore at Bilek...
Panchappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-30-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR974; 1988(3)KarLJ332
ORDERK.A. Swami, J1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 4-6-1976, passed by the Special Tahsildarfor Land Reforms, Jamkhandi, in Case No. KLR-SR-51. Jamkhandi (Annexure-D) and also the order dated 30-9-1981 passed by the Chairman, Land Tribunal,Jamkhandi, bearing No. KLR.SR.12/B/Kadkol (Annexure-E).2. Even though the first order was passed on 4-6-1976 and the second one was passed on 30-9-1981, the petition is filed on 16-7-1987 nearly after 11 years from the date of the first order and about 6 years from the date of the second order.3.1. In this case, the relevant facts are not in dispute. The land in question is S.No. 41/1, measuring 6 acres 38 guntas, assessed at Rs. 21.16 paise situated at Kadakol village, Jamkhandi Taluk, Bijapur District. The 4th respondent was the landlord of the land in question and as claimed by the petitioners, their father was the tenant. On the coming into force of the Karn...
Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Bangalore L.i.C. Employees Housing Co-o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-27-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2817; 1988(2)KarLJ455
Shyamasundar, J.1. This appeal is from an order made by the 15th City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on I.As. 2 and 3 in O.S. No. 4369 of 1986, on the 31st of January 1987. By the aforesaid order the learned Judge, affirmed the ad interim injunction granted to the plaintiff in the suit, restraining in particular the 1st defendant from utilising for its own purpose the suit property being a vacant land measuring 51 acres in extent, situate in the City of Bangalore, during the pendency of the suit.2. It would appear, the 1st defendant in the suit being the Life Insurance Corporation of India, (to be shortly called the 'Corporation') who is admittedly the owner of the suit plot had arranged for laying a foundation stone on the 26th of September, 1986 signifying the commencement of a project for constructing 122 houses on the suit plot for the benefit of the policy holders of the Corporation, accredited to the Bangalore Division.3. By an ad interim injunction the Court stopped any steps being tak...
Vishakante Gowda Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR664; 1989(1)KarLJ144
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 4-9-1987 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 453/86 (Annexure-C); rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, in R.A. No. 18/85-86 dated 8-7-1986. The Special Deputy Commissioner in turn has affirmed the order dated 30th April 1985 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub-Division, Mandya, in No.LND.CR. 152/84-85.2. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing S. No. 205/2 of Nagarakere village; respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the owners of lands bearing S. No. 204/1, 204/2, 204/3 and 205/1 of Nagarakere village, Maddur Taluk. These lands are situated on the eastern bank of Shimsha river; in other words the western boundary of these lands abuts the eastern bank of Shimsha river. The petitioner, according to the case of respondents 4 to 7, has...
R. Vijendra and Etc. Vs. the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1591; 1988(2)KarLJ8
Prem Chandjain, C.J. 1. The question of law that calls for decision by us reads thus : -'Whether a usufructuary mortgagee is a landlord for purposes of Part-II of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961?''2. The facts leading to the controversy may be recapitulated :The jurisdictional HRC Revenue Inspector, vide his report dated 24-8-1981, intimated the vacancy of premises No. 24 (upstairs), Sri Subramanya Temple Street, V.V. Puram Bangalore-4.Thereafter the vacancy was notified by the House Rent Controller suo motu in HRC. ALT. 209/81. A notice under S. 8(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 196 1, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was also issued to Smt. Kousalya Bai the owner of the premises. In the meanwhile, the writ-petitioner V. Vijendra also reported the vacancy of the premises. The vacancy was notified in HRC. ALT. 758/81. The petitioner (Para 4) was also served with notice under Sec. 8(l)(a) of the Act. The claim of the petitioner for self-occupation was on the ground th...
Dasappa and Sons Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-25-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR1710; 1988(1)KarLJ574
Prem Chand Jain, J.1. These appeals would be disposed of by this common Judgment as the point of law urged before us in both these appeals is common.2. The appellants are Excise Contractors. They are aggrieved by the amendment made to Rule 15 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967, (herein after referred to as General Conditions Rules). The amendment is effected by a notification gazetted on 25-6-1983, which came into effect from 1st July 1983. Prior to the coming into force of the amendment to Rule 15, the rate of interest payable for rent not paid before the stipulated date, viz., 10th of a month, was 6 1/4%. By the amendment effected, the rate of interest has been raised to 18% per annum. The appellants have challenged the amendment by filing Writ Petitions. Their petitions came up for hearing along with the petitions of the other Excise Contractors, and all the petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide his order dated 16th of ...
Haradi Ragavendra Pai Vs. University of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Kant176
ORDER1. The petitioner who, was at the relevant time the Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank having its Branch Office at Dharwad has called in question the correctness of the order passed by the 3rd respondent Vice -Chancellor of the 1st respondent-University withdrawing the degree conferred on him by the 1st respondent /University on the ground that he had committed fraud which disentitled him to hold the degree conferred on him. The relevant provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (in short the Act) under which action was taken against the petitioner read as under:'60. Withdrawal of Degree or Diploma(1) The Senate may on the recommendation, of the Syndicate withdrawamy,ftthict6it, degree, diploma or privilege conferred on or granted to any person by a resolution passed by a majority of the total membership of the Senate and by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of the Senate present and voting at the meeting, if such person has been found convicted b...
Mohammed Kalemulla Khan Vs. House Rent and Accommodation Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2609; 1988(2)KarLJ269
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. This petition is filed by the tenant who is in occupation of the premises bearing No. 458, Viveknagar, Bangalore-47. It is not disputed that he is occupying the premises since 1971 by paying a rent of Rs. 200/- per month. The second respondent is the Landlord.2. The second respondent who did not at one point of time, own any house made an application for allotment of house No. 19L-5th Street, Ashoknagar, Bangalore-25. The said house was allotted to him by the Rent Controller in the year 1964 on a monthly rent of Rs. 140/-. While he was continuing in this premises, he acquired the present premises No. 458, Viveknagar, Bangalore-47 in 1971. He leased it in favour of petitioner. The rent he was getting was more than the rent he was paying. As per Section 21A(1)(a), he was required to vacate the building within one year from the date of acquisition; admittedly, he did not do so and continued to stay in the allotted premises, and enjoyed the rents paid by the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »