Karnataka Court July 1990 Judgments

Abdul Khader Vs. Smt. Razia Begum

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1991CriLJ247; ILR1990KAR3109

ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) and is directed against the order dated 19-3-1990 made by the learned 111 Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. in Criminal Revision Petition No. 242/88 on his file. 2. The matter is heard on admission. 3. The facts are these : Sri Abdul Khader, the petitioner, married Smt. Razia Begum, the respondent, on 27-4-1977. In course of time there cropped up differences between the petitioner and the respondent. According to the petitioner, some days after the marriage, the respondent deserted him and went to reside with her parents. According further to him, his efforts to bring her back to his roof through the intervention of elders proved futile. The respondent filed an application under section 125 of the Code, seeking a monthly maintenance allowance in a sum of Rs. 300/- from the petitioner, in Miscellaneous Case No. 50/82. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who dealt with and d...

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. B. Rukmini K. Shetty

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1991(62)FLR99]; ILR1990KAR2770; 1990(2)KarLJ151

Mohan, C.J.1. The facts leading to the writ appeal are shortly as follows : Premises known as 'Hotel Shivaprasad,' situated at Kundapur Town belongs to a partnership firm consisting of the following partners : (1) V. K. Shetty (2) B. Arunkumar Shetty (3) Arithkala S. Shetty (4) Vasanthamala S. Shetty and (5) Amrithkala S. Shetty One P. N. Krishna Murthy Bhat was a Lessee of this premises who was running a restaurant. O.S. No. 28/1978 was filed before the Learned Civil Judge, Udipi for his eviction. That ended in a decree in favour of the landlord. In execution of that decree in E.C. No. 14/1983 ultimately, possession was delivered to the landlord on April 22, 1983. Thereafter the premises was leased in favour of Smt. B. Rukmini K. Shetty (respondent herein) under lease deed dated July 30, 1983. She started a restaurant under the same name and style of Hotel Shivaprasad afresh. She obtained loan form the Bank for starting this restaurant with new furniture and utensils. She also obt...

S.P. Gurjar Vs. Muddanna Shetty

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR3099; 1990(2)KarLJ213

N.D.V. Bhat, J.1. The question as to whether the quit notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is valid or not has arisen for consideration in this appeal.2. When the matter came up for hearing regarding admission, the Advocates on either side submitted that the aforesaid question is the only question that would arise for consideration in this appeal and both of them submitted that this appeal can be disposed of by raising the said substantial question for consideration and dispose of the same on merits itself on the basis of the materials available on record.3. When the matter was taken up for preparing the Judgment it was noticed that it was not possible to write a satisfactory Judgment without going through the plaint and the written statement as also the rent bond referred to in the Courts below. The learned Advocates, therefore, were requested on a subsequent date to make available copies of the plaint, written statement and the rent bond. On 11-7-1990, the,...

Gammon India Limited Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1991(62)FLR478]; ILR1990KAR2804; (1991)ILLJ523Kant

Mohan, C.J. 1. The facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows : The Mysore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the Fertilisers Ltd., ') was a company carrying on the business of manufacture of chemicals and fertilisers at Balgola, Mandya District, Karnataka State. The company had its own land and building where the manufacturing process was carried on with the help of machinery, which machinery also belonged to the company 2. The company was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court dated 14th of December, 1972. Long prior to this date, the company had stopped its manufacturing operations and discharged all the workmen. The reconstitution of the company failed. Therefore, its assets were sold by public auction held by this Court. The appellant purchased the said assets of the Fertilisers Ltd., consisting of land, building and machinery on 27th of June, 1975 for a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/-. The sale was confirmed by this Court on 11th of July, 1975. The...

Divisional Engineer, Telecom Vs. Vidyasagar

Court: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

R.G. Desai, President: (1) After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent and perusing the records, the Commission delivered the following: (2) This appeal is directed against the Cider dated 23.4.1990 passed by the District Forum, Gulbarga in Complaint No. 14/1990 on its file. It arises in this way :- (3) Telephone No. 20160 is installed in the residence of the respondent situated in Aiwan-EShahi Road, Gulbarga and it stands in the name of the respondent. Telephone No. 23160 was allotted to the respondent as Proprietor of Bidar Pharmaceutical Laboratory and that Telephone also is installed in his residence called "Jaideep" situated in Engineering College Road, Gulbarga. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the premises in which both the telephones are installed is the same. The bill for Rs. 5,263/- in respect of Telephone No. 23160 was issued to the respondent. As he failed to pay in time as per rules, both the telephones of the respondent ...

K. Lakshmi Reddy and Others Vs. the Bangalore University and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1991Kant182; ILR1990KAR2941

ORDERB. P. Singh, J.1. These petitions have been referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court under Sec. 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The learned single Judge observed that though the question raised was covered by the law declared by the Supreme Court, and Division Bench decisions of this Court against the petitioners, since it was stated that similar matters were pending in Writ Petitions Nos.621 to 638 of 1987 these writ petitions should also be placed for disposal before a Division Bench.2. This is yet another instance, where a private institution admit led to the B.Ed, course candidates, who were ineligible for admission under the University Regulations, having not secured the minimum marks prescribed under the relevant regulation. The facts are lew and not in dispute.3. The petitioners claim that they are graduates having obtained B.A. degree. Petitioners 1 and 2 claim to have obtained their B.A. degrees from the Venkateswara University, both havin...

Builders Association of India Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1990]79STC442(Kar)

1. All these writ petitions can be dealt with under a common judgment since they question the validity of section 5B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, introduced by the Amendment Act No. 27 of 1985, with effect from 1st April, 1986. 2. We propose to note the facts in Writ Petitions Nos. 2064 to 2067 of 1988 : The petitioners are civil engineering contractors engaged in civil construction work in the State of Karnataka. In order to bring the activity of works contract within the purview of power to levy sales tax by the respective State, amendments were introduced extending the definition of 'sale' under article 366(29-A) of the Constitution of India. Following the constitutional amendment, the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was amended by the Amendment Act No. 27 of 1985. In pursuance of the amendment, the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules were also amended by the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1986. As a result of the aforesaid amendments, the activity of the petitioner in the nature of ...

Ningappa Advivappa Desai Vs. Madivalappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1991KAR1660; 1990(3)KarLJ473

N.D.V. Bhat, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 23-8-1976 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Dharwar in R.A.No.91/1972. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:2. Platntiffs, filed O.S.No.230/1969 on the file of Munsiff, Dharwar praying for a decree against the defendant for declaration that the sale deed dated 29-6-1967 by their father in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit house and the decree obtained by the defendant in O.S.No.49/1969 against their father are illegal and void and not binding on them and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from executing the said decree in O.S.No.49/1969.3. The case of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint can be briefly summarised as follows: The suit property comprising the house and a backyard bearing T.P.C.No.832 of Hebballi village in Uhaiwar taluk in the coparcenary property consisting of plaintiffs and their father and that the plaintif...

Reserve Bank of India Vs. B.R. Srinivasa Prasad

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR2791; 1990(2)KarLJ118

Mohan, C.J.1. Both these appeals are disposed of by this common Judgment, since common point arises for our consideration.2. The first respondent in each of the Writ Appeals, namely, B.R. Srinivasa Prasad and Smt. N, Nagasundaram, were working as Supervisors in the Currency Note Examination Section in the Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore (Appellant). In connection with a large-scale fraud discovered in the Bank relating to non-issuable currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination, these two respondents along with many others were suspected to be involved in the matter. They were placed under suspension pending completion of the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. B.R. Srinivasa Prasad was placed under suspension on 31-7-1979 and Smt, Nagasundaram was placed under suspension on 4-7-1979.3. These orders of suspensions were passed by exercise of powers under Regulation 47(4) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulation, 1948 (for short Regulation 1948). After the completi...

A.S. Kupparaju Vs. General Secretary, Raju Kshatriya Welfare Associati ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1990KAR3721; 1990(2)KarLJ403

ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This Writ Petition has come before us on account of the Order of Reference dated June 1, 1988 made by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge was of the view that the decision of this Court rendered by a learned single Judge In MAHILA SEVA SAMAJ AND ANR. v. REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES AND ORS.,1980(1) KLJ 327 required re-consideration. The learned single Judge in the order of reference has given expression to his doubts about the correctness of the aforementioned decision in the case of Mahila Seva Samaj. He has expressed the view that if the requisite majority of the Members of the Society requisitioned an enquiry under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Registrar was bound to hold the enquiry and if the requisition for enquiry was less than the prescribed number of members or by a third person, the Registrar could yet hold an enquiry as the relevant Section conferred p...