Karnataka Court June 1990 Judgments
Rajasab Husseinsab Mulla Vs. Inayuthullakhan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1649
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 14-2-1978 passed in R.A. No. 166/1973 by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Hubli, partly modifying the Judgment and decree dated 27-10-1973 passed by III Additional Munsiff, Hubli, in O.S. No. 412/1970.2. This Second Appeal is referred to a Division Bench on the ground that there is a conflict between the two Decisions of this Court in HANUMANTAPPA KALLAPPA v. VEERAPPA BUDRAPPA, 1976(2) KLJ 281 AND PATEL DODDAKEMPEGOWDA v. CHIKKERE GOWDA, : ILR1986KAR2404 .3. The appellant is the defendant. Respondent is the plaintiff. The suit is filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit site described as BCE in the rough sketch annexed to the plaint and for possession of the same and also for a mandatory injuction directing the defendant to demolish the temporary structure put up on the suit site with future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Sanna Shetty Vs. Shanthamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2542; 1990(2)KarLJ166
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This matter coming up for orders, by consent of Counsel for parties, is taken up for final disposal and disposed of by the following order.2. The appellant before us, Sanna Shetty, is employed as a Police Constable and presently working at Bangalore. The appellant was married to respondent Shanthamma on 17-5-1985. Thereafter, out of their wedlock, a child by name Divya was born on 22-4-1986. Soon after the birth of the child, differences between husband and wife surfaced and ultimately the respondent Shanthamma left her husband and has been staying with her parents at Chickballapur. She left her husband together with the child. However, it is alleged by her that on 10-4-1987, the appellant-husband came and forcibly took away the child from her custody and the child was, at the relevant time, only 2 years and 5 months old. Thereafter, certain criminal proceedings were initiated against the husband by the wife which has since culminated in the acquittal of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Biliyaneppa Vs. Danappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3764; 1990(2)KarLJ255
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. The short point for decision is, whether this appeal from the decree dated 1-2-1986 passed by the Civil Judge at Bijapur in Original Suit No. 108 of 1980 pending before the High Court has stood transferred to the District Court at Bijapur under clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Law (Amendment) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Amendment Act') on 17-4-1989, the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.2. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Amendment Act, which is of materiality for deciding the said point, reads:-'(c) appeals and proceedings connected therewith pending before the High Court from decrees and orders passed by a Civil Judge in original suits or proceedings of a civil nature the amount or value of the subject matter of which is less than one lakh rupees shall, on the date of commencement of this Act, stand transferred to the District Court and shall be disposed of by such Courts in accordance with law as ...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Alevoor and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant111
ORDER1. The petitioners who are residents of Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation fall into three categories, namely, those who utilise the water supplied by the Corporation for their domestic purpose, nursing homes and hotels and lodgings. By a resolution dated 5-7-86 the Corporation proposed an increase in the water rates at graded rates from 0.25 paise to Rs. 1.60 per 1000 litres with a minimum of Rs. 4/- in respect of domestic users and in respect of boarding, lodging, restaurants, hotels, factories and nursing homes at the rate of Rs. 8/- per every thousand litres with a minimum of Rs. 25/-. In respect of those consumers who do not have a meter certain other rates were proposed. During the year 1961-62 the Corporation fixed water rate at 25 paisc per every thousand litres in respect of domestic consumer and at the rate of 66 paise in respect of non-domestic consumer. The Corporation was supplyingwater between the years 1961 to 1983 from Unkal Water Works which is wholly owned and m...
Tag this Judgment!Sherappa Vs. the State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ2215; ILR1991KAR1129
Hiremath, J.1. In this appeal, the accused-appellant challenges his conviction and sentence under S. 302, I.P.C. passed by the Court of Sessions at Bidar. The charge against the accused is that on 15-1-1987, at about 6.30 p.m., on the public road near the tailoring shop of one Vittal and Ambedkar temple at Chillergi village in Bidar Taluk, he committed the murder of Shankarappa by assaulting him with a knife. The motive for this murder is said to be the illegitimate connection of deceased for 4 or 5 years, with the wife of the accused and he did not even heed to the advice of the Panchayathdars. On that evening, at about 6 or 6.30 p.m., when P.W. 1 and his wife were near the Ambedkar temple in the village, the accused was standing there and when the deceased came from the opposite direction, he immediately rushed towards him alleging that his wife had been the keep of the deceased. He chose the centre part of the chest for the assault with the knife and his brother who had sustained in...
Tag this Judgment!B. Rudraiah Vs. S.N. Prahlada Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR513
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 21-2-1987 passed by the learned I Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in M.A. No. 258/1986. That appeal is preferred against the order dated 5-11-1986 passed by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore in HOA No. 1 and 2/1986-87.2. The learned I Additional City Civil Judge has held that the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent against the aforesaid order of the Tahsildar is maintainable and has accordingly directed the appeal to be heard on merits.3. The learned Single Judge has referred the Civil Revision Petition to a Division Bench on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case and as the appeal M.A. No. 258/1986 arises out of the proceeding instituted or initiated pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3542/1986, its effect and if necessary even its correctness may have to be examined. Therefore, learned Single Judge has thought it fit t...
Tag this Judgment!C. Yethrappa Vs. D. Yusuf Khan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-25-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3981; 1990(2)KarLJ437
ORDERSwami, J.1. These two Civil. Revision Petitions are preferred against the common order dated 10th December 1982 passed in H.R.C. Misc. Nos. 688/1982 and 726/1982 by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore' City and are referred to a Division Bench as they involve a question of law of general importance.2. The Civil Revision Petition No. 728/1986 was also referred to a Division Bench along with these Civil Revision Petitions; but it has been separately disposed of without deciding the questions of law involved in these Civil Revision Petitions. The reasons for referring these petitions to a Division Bench are contained in the order dated 21-2-1986 passed in C.R.P. No. 728/1986.2.1. It may be relevant to notice that the respondents in C.R.Ps.52 and 53 of 1983 were the tenants of the non-residential premises bearing No. 15. The petitioner was the landlord of the aforesaid premises. He filed eviction petitions in H.R.C. 64/1975 and 111/1975 against respondents-1 and 2 respecti...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Gajanan Motor Transport Company Ltd. and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of K ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant40; ILR1990KAR2718; 1990(3)KarLJ63
ORDERS. Mohan, C. J. 1. It is enough if we refer to the facts of the case in W.P. No. 8371 of 1989. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company operating about 90 stage carriage services in the State of Karnataka and some of them are inter-State routes. 2. For purposes of recruiting qualified trained drivers for the business of the company, the petitioner established two driving schools at Shimoga and Sagar in the district of Shimoga. In order to impart instructions to the learner-drivers in the driving of heavy passenger motor vehicles, the petitioner is owning three omni buses for which necessary licences have been obtained. 3. He has also established a driving school which is regulated by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) and Rule 30 of the Rules framed under the Act. They contain stringent provisions with reference to the establishment and the running of schools. 4. The petitioner submits that under Art. 246(2) read with Entry No. 35 of List...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Labour Commissioner, Bangalore and Others Vs. T.K. Varkey and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR718]; ILR1991KAR946
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated March 11, 1985, passed in W.P. No. 8398 of 1984. The appellants herein were respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioners in the writ petition. In this appeal, the appellants will be referred to as respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 1 and 2 as petitioners. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioners have sought for quashing the orders dated March 31, 1984, passed by the first respondent on Claim Application Nos. MW 92 of 1983 and MW 93 of 1983 (Annexure-H). Those application were filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (respondent 2) before the 1st respondent under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages, Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Enforcement Officer claimed that the wages paid by the petitioner to workmen employed for construction of staff quarters for Railway Administration at Puttenahalli, Yelahanka Hoble, were not in conformity with the notification issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. V.S. Acharya Vs. Returning Officer and Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR2546
ORDERVenkatachala, J. 1. In this Election Petition presented under Section 31 of the 'Representation of People Act, 1951 ('the Act'), the petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in the election held from the Karnataka South-West Graduates Constituency to fill the seat in the Karnataka Legislative Council of its Member retiring on 30th June 1986, has sought for a declaration that the election of respondent-2, the returned candidate from that Constituency, is void and a further declaration that he (the petitioner) is the returned candidate in that election.2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, is briefly:-Nomination papers of the petitioner, respondent-2, respondent-3 and respondent-4 for the election to be held on 22-6-1986 respecting the membership of the Karnataka Legislative Council from the Karnataka South-West Graduates Constituency were duly filed before respondent-1, the Returning Officer of that election. One V. Dhananjaya Kumar, on his own behalf and as the a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »