Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR3380; 1989(3)KarLJ532
Balakrishna, J1. This Misc. Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Karwar dated 3-1-1989 passed in R.A.No. 44/1988 reversing the decision of the Munsiff, Honavar, passed on 26-5-1988 in O.S. No. 17/1976.2. The material facts in brief are as follows: The suit in O.S.No. 17/1976 which was pending on the file of the Munsiff, Honavar, was posted for evidence of the plaintiffs on 26-5-1988. On the said date the parties remained absent and therefore the Counsel for the plaintiffs filed an application for adjournment but the adjournment application was rejected and the suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter appeal was preferred before the Civil Judge, Karwar, against the said order of dismissal. The dismissal order was not on merits.3. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Court and the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit was restored to file for disposal of the suit in accordance with law.4. The Appellate Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR369; 1989(3)KarLJ440
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. By consent of both sides the petition is heard for final disposal.2. In this Civil Revision Petition under Section 121-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19-4-1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mandya in Appeal No. 372 of 1986 allowing Interlocutory Applications IV and V filed by the first respondent/appellant.3. The first respondent filed an application in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy right in the lands bearing S.Nos. 42 and 49 measuring 3 acres 3 guntas and 17 guntas respectively situated at Beerashetty Village, Taluk Pandavapura. The Land Tribunal rejected the application by the order dated 24-10-80. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in W.P.31307/1982. The Writ Petition came to be transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the Karnataka Act, 19/1986. Pursuant to the transfer the Writ Petition was numbere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1990CriLJ766; ILR1989KAR3609
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner who is a detenu challenges the validity of his detention made in pursuance of a detention order dated 24-2-1989 purported to have been made under S. 3(1) of COFEPOSA Act, 1974. The relevant facts can be stated by summarizing the grounds, in support of the order of detention supplied to the petitioner. 2. The Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Bangalore kept watch near Talpady Checkpost along with two independent witnesses on 12-2-1989 looking out for cars bound to Bombay, transporting contraband gold. Around 14.45 Hrs. on that day, a blue colour Maruthi car was noticed coming from Kasargad side. As it approached the checkpost, the officers signaled it to stop. The said car did not have any painted number plate on either side; however a number CRX 3676 in small letters was seen written. Beside the petitioner as the driver of the car, there was one more occupant in the car sitting on the back seat. At this point of time,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant318; 1990(3)KarLJ182
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges the demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar in seeking to enforce an excise liability foisted on the petitioner in regard to certain transactions already entered into by him in Chittoor District of Andhra Pradesh. A sum of Rs. 11,963.13 is claimed from the petitioner towards the loss suffered by the Chittoor Excise Authority relating to reauction sale of the privilege of selling an excise product. The reauction is said to have resulted on account of petitioner's failure ir performing the contract upon being awarded. The alleged loss sustained by the Chittoor Excise Authority not having been made good by the petitioner the Collector of Chittoor sent a certificate in this behalf purportedly under the Revenue Recovery Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Kolar in whose ordinary jurisdiction the petitioner resides, for recovery and remittance. In turn the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar issued a notice of demand as per Annexure-A and the said notice...
Tag this Judgment!