Karnataka Court August 1989 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.
United theological College Vs. Sunny Kulathakkal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR3320; 1989(2)KarLJ456
Hiremath, J 1. The appellant herein is the United Theological College, Bangalore, registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It has got its own Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws, copy of which is produced at Exhibit P-1 and relied upon by both sides. The Constitution of the Society states that it shall be administered by a Council which is referred to in the suit as a 'Governing Council'. The Council shall meet as provided under the Memorandum of Association ('Memorandum' for short hereafter) under Clause 8, at such times and places as they shall from time to time appoint, and may make such rules and regulations as they think proper relating to the summoning and holding of meetings and for the transaction of business thereat, and they may adjourn such meetings, and from time to time fix the quorum necessary for the transaction of business, but until they shall otherwise determine seven members of the Council shall form a quorum. The Sec...
S.R. Bommai and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant5; ILR1989KAR2425
ORDERPrem Chand Jain, C.J. 1. Sri S. R.Bommai and others have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and Constitutional validity of the Presidential proclamation dated 21-4-1989 (Annexure L).2. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case (except the allegations of mala fides made against respondent 3 the Governor, which were not pressed), may be noticed :-Sri S. R. Bommai, the first petitioner, was functioning as the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka, and the other three petitioners were members in his Council of Ministers on the date of the impugned proclamation. Before the dissolution of the State Assembly, when Janata Party had formed the Government, the party wise strength of members in the Assembly was as follows: (a) Janatha 139 (b) Congress 66 (c) C.P.M. 2 (d) C.P.I. 4 (e) B.J.P. 2 (f) Independents 8 (g) M.E.S. 3 (h) Nominated 1 __________ Total 225 __________It is averred t...
Mahadevaiah Vs. Sales Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: 1989(3)KarLJ450
Swami, J.1. This second appeal arises out of O.S. No. 17/1978 filed by the plaintiff-appellant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from distraining or interfering in any manner with the moveables of the plaintiff kept in the schedule premises and compelling the plaintiff in any manner to make payments and for costs.2. The case of the plaintiff is that he had raised a loan from the 2nd defendant-society. It was a secured loan in a sum of Rs. 4,000/- in the year 1961; that an award was obtained by the 2nd defendant against him in the year 1963 for a sum of Rs. 4,480-47 and subsequently he paid a sum of Rs. 5,950/- and satisfied the award; that in spite of that, the 2nd defendant with his staff members surprisingly visited the schedule premises in which the plaintiff was residing and attempted to distrain the moveables of the plaintiff by force though they had no authority to do so. Hence the plaint-tiff filed the suit for a permanent injunction as stated above.3. The de...
Chief Secretary Vs. Gopal Ramachandra Nadgouda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR3371; 1989(2)KarLJ406
ORDER XXI RULE 32 - Object - Conditions precedent to sale - Unless conditions fulfilled, grant of compensation out of sale proceeds impermissible - Not permissible to convert decree for injunction into decree for compensatory costs - Inherent power to give effect to decree Ex Debito Justitiae exercisable; fresh suit not necessary.Object of the Rule is to compel the Judgment-debtor to perform the obligations arising from decree for injunction. Unless the conditions are fulfilled, it is not permissible for a Court to proceed to grant compensation out of sale proceeds.. .It is not permissible, for the Executing Court to convert a decree for injunction into a decree for compensatory costs. The first thing before giving effect to Order XXI Rule 32 CPC is to find out whether a decree for injunction is passed against a party who though had an opportunity to obey it has wilfully failed to do so and the decree can be enforced by attachment of property or detention of the Judgment Debtors in the...
Karnataka State Cine Junior Artists Association Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2195
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The first Writ Petition (W.P.No. 10966/89), is filed by the Karnataka State Cine Junior Artists' Association, represented by its President and the second petition (W.P.No. 12233/89) is filed by the two-persons, the first of whom is a Professor of Kannada and the second is a Reader in Kannada, Vijaya College. They claimed to be interested in the advancement of Kannada -language and the interests of Kannadigas, inter alia, the promotion and encouragement of Kannada-films and the Kannada film industry in the Karnataka State.2. Both the petitions are filed as public interest litigation and have challenged the Government Order dated 13th June 1989 granting 50% entertainment-tax under Sections 3C(i)(a) and 4A(i) of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958 (the Act) to the Kannada Feature Film - 'SHARAVEGADA SARADARA'.3. The State of Karnataka, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Director of Information and Publicity are respondents-1 to 3 to the Writ ...
Hombamma Vs. Kempamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR3395; 1989(2)KarLJ369
K.A. Swami, J 1. At the stage of admission, the respondents are served. They have put in appearance through a Counsel. The records of the Courts below are also received. The appeal involves a short substantial question of law. Therefore, it is admitted and it is heard for final disposal.2. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration is as to 'whether the lower appellate Court, in the absence of the Counsel for the appellants and in the presence of one of the appellants, could have decided the appeal on merits.'3. The records reveal that on 26-7-1988, the appeal was posted for hearing. On that day, a representation was made on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants for time on the ground that the learned Counsel for the appellants was admitted to the hospital for treatment. On this representation, the lower appellate Court adjourned the hearing of the appeal to 28-9-1988. On 28-9-1988, appellant No. 1 was personally present. The Counsel for the appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›