Karnataka Court February 1989 Judgments
Basava Reddy D. Sunkapur Vs. Shri Jagadguru Murugarajendra Vidhyapeeth
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1668; 1989(3)KarLJ59
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17-9-1988 passed on I.A-VII by the Principal Munsiff & I Additional J.M.F.C., Ranebennur, in O.S.No. 133 of 1981.2. The essential facts may be stated thus:The suit was filed by respondent-1 for the following reliefs:(a) Plaintiff prays that it be declared that the plaintiff is lawfully entitled to run and manage and to do all other necessary administrative and supervisory powers over the staff and over the funds and to control over the asset of the suit College (and to be in possession of all the properties, movable and immovable pertaining to the suit College);(b) The defendants or any one on their behalf be permanently restrained from interfering with the administration and the management and other activities of the suit College run by the plaintiff;(c) It be declared that all appointments of the staff or assignment of jobs etc., done by the defendants any liability if incurred by the defendants ...
Tag this Judgment!C.E. Nagarathnamma Vs. Abdul Gafoor Sab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1052; 1989(3)KarLJ82
ORDER 9 Rule 9 - Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c) lies not revision even if application disposed of on preliminary point.vide: Headnote supra(B) LIMITATION ACT, 1963 (Central Act No. 36 of 1963) - Section 5 - Applying and obtaining certified copies bonafide, sufficient cause for condoning delay. The appellant had in fact applied for certified copy of the order within two days of the pronouncement of the order of dismissal and obtained the same on 21-11-1987. Therefore this itself should be construed as sufficient cause for condoning the delay and she must be deemed to have been held bona fide to have waited for obtaining the certified copies. The trial Court was therefore not justified in finding that she wanted some how to circum vent the provisions of law particularly of Section 12 of the Limitation Act....The Court below was not justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissing the petition itself as barred by time. ...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. K.S. Kushalappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1989
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas122(Kar)
Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. The short question that has fallen for determination by us in this appeal by the Canara Bank is whether the ad litem interest given from the date of suit to the of decree and from date of decree to the date of realisation at 6% per annum is in conformity with section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') or opposed to it? 2. In the trial court, the suit filed for recovery of money advanced to the respondent-defendants for development of their coffee estate has been decreed. But ad litem interest as noticed by us has been granted at 6% per annum, i.e., maximum permissible under sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Code. It was submitted by learned counsel that the loan advanced for the development of the coffee estate should be treated as a commercial loan and discretion should have been exercised by the trial judge in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 34 of the Code to come nearer the contractual rate so far as it rel...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. K.S. Kushalappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant145
ORDERChandrakantharaj Urs, J. 1. The short question that has fallen for determination by us in this appeal by the Canara Bank is whether the ad litem interest given from the date of suit to the date of decree and from date of decree to the date of realisation at 6% p.a. is in conformity with S. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short the Code) or opposed to it?2. In the trial Court the suit filed for recovery of money advanced to the respondents-defendants for development of their coffee estate has been decreed. But ad litem interest as noticed by us has been granted at 6% p.a. i.e., maximum permissible under sub-sec. (1) of S. 34 of the Code. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the loan advanced for the development of coffee estate should be treated as a commercial loan and the discretion should have been exercised by the trial Judge in accordance with the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 34 of the Code to come nearer the contractual rate so far as it related to ad litem int...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmegowda Vs. Dyavegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-10-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1942; 1989(2)KarLJ41
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In an appeal which is pending, the appellant has filed applications under Order 19 Rule 1, as also under Order 12 Rules 1 & 5 with Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the petitioner as to whether he admits the truth of the boundaries given in respect of certain property of which a sketch was filed in the appeal along with the applications. The Court below allowed the I.As in part and directed the petitioner to admit or deny the correctness of the sketch and the boundaries mentioned in the sketch etc.2. Sri G.S. Visweswara, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the procedure followed by the lower Court is contrary to the provisions Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, as the attempt of the respondent is to prove certain facts in appeal by recourse to these I.As.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, tried to justify the order of the lower Court.4. Order XII Rule 1 CPC governs the admissions of a case by the opposite party, Under Order 12 Rule 2...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Norti and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR943
ORDER1. This is a petition under S. 458 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). Petitioner 1 is a Head Constable bearing Buckle No. 178, while petitioners 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are Constables (Members of State Police Force). 2. It is the case of the prosecution, as is seen from the record, that the petitioners were attached to Ranebennur Police Station at the material time and that they committed murder of one Guddappa who had been taken to the Police Station at Ranebenner on 20-10-1988 as a suspect in a case registered in Crime No. 168 of 1988 in the said Police Station. 3. The petitioners along with one other arraigned as co-accused with them approached the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 308 of 1988 for a direction under S. 438 of the Code to release them on bail in the event of their arrest. The learned Principal Sessions Judge by the order dated November 29, 1988 rejected their petition. The petitioners have renewed their requ...
Tag this Judgment!Ameer Vs. Chandrasekharappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-09-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2408
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This is a defendants' appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 27-6-1988 passed in Original Suit No. 140 of 1983 on the file of the Civil Judge at Davanagere in Chitradurga District.2. In the course of our Judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.3. Plaintiff brought the suit for specific performance of the contract. The Agreement for Sale was marked as Ex.P-3 in the suit at the time of evidence. Plaintiff alleged that he was a tenant under the first defendant in respect of the shop premises bearing No. 47/3 and that he was paying a rent of Rs. 75/- per mensum; that the said premises became highly dilapidated and became unfit and dangerous to carry on business in it and in that circumstances, the plaintiff asked the first defendant to renovate and put the necessary rolling iron door shutters and other necessary work for the improvement of the building undertaking to repay the costs of repair and renovation wh...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1695; 1989(1)KarLJ207
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is an Advocate practising at Bangalore, has filed this Criminal Petitioner under S. 482 of the Criminal P.C. 1973, for quashing the proceedings pending against him in C.C. No. 37255/88 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court, Mayohall, Bangalore, for an offence under Clause (r) of sub-section (1) of S. 92 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, for short the 'Act'. 2. The said case is registered against the petitioner on the basis of a Petty Case Charge-sheet placed against him by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Seshadripuram Police Station, Bangalore-20. The allegations made against the petitioner in Column No. 7 of the Said chargesheet read as under :- 3. Acting on the above extracted allegations made in the Chargesheet, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has ordered on 22-10-1988 as under :- 'Issue summons to the accused' 4. The petitioner has contended in his petition that he has not committed the offence alleged against him and even if the en...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Shyamala Vs. C.S. Srikantaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant146; 1989(1)KarLJ381
ORDER1. This is a petition filed by the wife of the respondent under S. 24 C.P.C. for transfer of suit O.S. No. 96/86 which is pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Tumkur, to the Family Court, Bangalore.2. The facts in brief are as follows :The petitioner is stated to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent and soon after the marriage, differences arose between respondent and petitioner-wife resulting in institution of M.C. 1/85 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., Tumkur. The marriage was celebrated in Tumkur only and it is not disputed that the last place of residence of the couple is Tumkur. Various contentions were raised before the Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., Tumkur, by the respondent and the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed by the Court after trial. It is stated that no appeal was preferred and the order became final. According to the petitioner she is now residing along with her brother since her father is not capable ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ravindra Devadiga Vs. Sebastian Britto
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Kant280
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 19-8-1988 made in Misc. Case No. 10/1985 on the file of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada District. That petition was one made under O. IX, R. 13 of the C. P. C. The prayer therein was to set aside the ex parte decree passed on 28-2-1985 in S.C. No. 376/1983 on the file of that Court. On the pleadings in the said miscellaneous case, the lower Court formulated the following three points for consideration:(1) Whether the decree passed in. S. C No. 376/1983 on the file of this Court dt. 282-1985 is an ex parte decree? (2) Whether the petitioner proves that he was prevented from attending the Court and his advocate's office due to family dispute and illness and he had a sufficient cause in not attending the Court during the month of January and February 1985? (3) Whether the petition is barred by time? On all the points for consideration, the Court held against the petitioner. Therefore the present revision petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »