Karnataka Court July 1990 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.
K. Babu Shetty Vs. Sri Mahalakshmi Ravainath Devaru
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3904
ORDERJagannatha Shetty, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Principal Munsiff, Mangalore in Execution Case No. 342 of 1989 dated 19-8-1989 dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioners under Section 144 C.P.C. for restitution.2. Briefly stated the facts are: That the respondent-owner obtained an order in C.R.P. 335 of 1989 from the High Court of Karnataka which reversed the concurrent findings of the Munsiff and the District Judge, in H.R.C. No. 144 of 1980 and C.R.P. 96 of 1984 respectively and consequently passed an order dated 7-12-1988 of eviction of the petitioner who was statutory tenant of the premises in question. The said Civil Revision Petition was heard by the Hon'ble Court without notifying the date of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know of the order of eviction passed by the High Court only when the respondent-owner filed an Execution Case 164 of 1989 and 'sought police aid and permission to break open the...
Haridavar Gir Vs. Mallinath @ Malikar Jun and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant58; 1990(3)KarLJ583
1. This is a 1st defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court.2. In the course of this Judgment, the parties will be referred to by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.3. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 53/1981 in the Court of the Munsiff, Basavakalyan inter alia seeking relief for declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and possession of the same.4. When 9 acres and 16 guntas of land along with the other lands were purchased from one Smt. Gangabai wife of Gurulin-gappa Mantal, the plaintiff was a minor and the same was purchased under a registered sale deed dated 18-2-1959 by obtaining permission for alienation and since then he was in possession. Through the guardian, he was enjoying the suit land. The land comprised in S. No. 11 was divided into three hissas or parts. The part No. 4 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas was situated at Tipranth village in Basavakaiyan taluk. He further pleaded that defendants 1...
Ravu Babaji Berad Vs. Maruthi Krishna Naik
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1990
Reported in: ILR1992KAR877; 1991(4)KarLJ225
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 9.12.1976 passed in R.A.No. 279/1972 by the Principal Civil Judge, Chikodi, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 11.9.1968 passed by the Munsiff, Chikodi, in O.S.No.59/1965.2. The appellants are the defendants. The respondents are the plaintiffs.3. The respondents filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration that they have become the owners of the Schedule A and B properties and have also come to possess leasehold right in C schedule properties and further they have come to possess the same right which the deceased testator Dadu Babaji Berad alias Naik (hereinafter referred to as 'Dadu') enjoyed in D schedule properties.4. All the properties are the agricultural lands. It is not in dispute in this case that agricultural lands comprised in Schedule A and B were owned by the testator Dadu. It is also not in dispute that Dadu was in possession of lands described in schedule C as protected tenant unde...
B.G. Anand Rao Vs. Mohammed Akbar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR86; 1990(3)KarLJ262
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 24-2-1986 passed in Ex. Case No. 252/1985 on the file of the I Additional Munsiff, Hubli.2. This C.R.P. is referred to a Division Bench by an order dated 25-2-1989 to decide whether the ratio of the decisions of this Court in Ratna Bai v. N. Narayana, 1972(2) Mys. L.J. 185 and B. Bhoja v. Athanasius Joseph Rochie and Anr., 1969(2) Mys. L.J. 552 still hold good, in the light of a decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari and Anr. v. Lakshmi Narayan gupta.3. There was an order passed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the petitioner In H.R.C. No. 23/1982 on 13-9-1985 directing the petitioner -Judgment debtor - (tenant) to deposit the arrears of rent of- Rs. 209/- within one month or to vacate and put the landlord in vacant possession of the petition premises in default thereof. The petitioner-tenant could not deposit...
Between Smt. Girajawwa and Others Vs. Smt. Basawwa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant51; 1990(3)KarLJ231
1. This is a defendants' second appeal having unsuccessfully resisted the respondent-plaintiff's suit for possession and mandatory injunction.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 137/1983 in the Court of the Munsiff at Saundatti inter alia seeking the relief of possession from the defendants of the suit schedule property and a mandatory injunc-tion directing the defendants to construct a wall between their property and hers which the defendants had allegedly demolished.3. It was her case that she was the purchaser of the suit schedule property from the previous owner, one Maruti Shetteppa Kallur, who had obtained his title by virtue of a partition between himself and the defendants. The defendants had unlawfully dispossessed her and demolished the wall and interfered with her peaceful possession thereby.4. The defendants resisted the suit by bald denial of all allegations of the plaintiff and contending that she was not the owner of the property; that the suit was not maintainabl...
M/S. T.T. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant79
ORDER1. In these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for a declaration that S. 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rules 1(3), 2(s), 4, 6 and 23 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are void and unenforceable. They nave also sought for certain other incidental reliefs.2. The petitioners claim to be engaged in the business of selling various commodities who have factories in various parts of the country. Various goods are manufactured by them with the intention of selling them throughout India. The grounds upon which the various provisions of the Act and the Rules are challenged are as follows : (i) That S. 39 of the Act being applicable to only inter-State trade and commerce has no application to sales effected by the petitioners which are inter-State transactions. (ii) Rules 6 and 23 are unreasonable restrictions ...
Zahira Begum Vs. Visalakshi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2092
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 22-1-1990 passed by the learned VII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City in H.R.C.No. 1679/1987 on I.A.No. I filed by the landlady respondent under Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act').2. The petitioner is the tenant of the ground floor of the premises No. 21/1 situated at 16th Cross, I Main Road, Sampangiramanagar, Bangalore. The respondent is the landlady of the premises. She has filed an application for eviction under Section 21 (1)(b), (c), (d), (f) and (h) of the Act.3. During the pendency of the aforesaid H.R.C. petition, she has filed an application I.A.No. I. under Section 29 of the Act for stopping further proceedings as the petitioner-tenant has not paid the rents uptodate.4. Having regard to the pleas raised by the parties, the learned VII Additional Small Causes Judge, raised the following points for determination:1) (a) Does the petitioner pr...
Workmen of Saw Mills and Wood Working Factory of Madras Sapper Ex-Serv ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1a; 1990(3)KarLJ72
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal on the original side is preferred by the workmen of Saw Mill and Wood Working Factory of Madras Sapper Ex-Servicemen's Rehabilitation Association (for short MSERA) represented by the MSERA Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as 'Union').2. MSERA is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 with the object of promoting the welfare of Ex-Servicemen who could be rehabilitated by providing with employment in certain trade and occupation. The relevant portion reads as follows:'Object for which the Association is established are all or any of the following sub-clauses (and in construing the following sub-clauses the scope of no one of such sub-clauses shall be deemed to limit or affect the scope of any other of such sub-clauses: XXX XXX XXX(xiv) To carry on any trade or business or any manufacturing activity in the field of Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and General Engineering including lumbering, Saw Milling, Manufac...
S.L. Vasanthakumar Vs. Union Government of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1990
Reported in: [1991]72CompCas489(Kar); ILR1990KAR2843; 1990(3)KarLJ273
Rama Jois, J.1. This writ appeal is presented against the order of the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition presented by the petitioner in which he had challenged the legality of seizure of certain quantities of gold and also cash belonging to the appellant by the fourth respondent. 2. The fact of the case, in brief, are these : The appellant is a certified goldsmith and licensed pawn broker and money - lender on his business in the city of bellary. On August 25, 1989, when the appellant was not in station, as he had gone to Rajasthan, the fourth respondent conducted a raid and search of the business premises of the appellant. After search, the fourth respondent seized gold weighing 569.900 gms. and also of Rs. 77,000. On receiving information, the appellant who was then in Rajasthan rushed back to ballary and made a representation on August 30, 1989, and requested the fourth respondent to return the gold and cash seized. In his representation, he stated that the entire gol...
Dharmapal Vs. Vagjibhai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)KarLJ101
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 27th June 1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gulbarga in Civil Revision Petition No. 8/1983 reversing the order dated 24th June 1982 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Gulbarga in Misc. Case No. 182/1968.2. The Revision Petition is referred to a Division Bench, having regard to the questions of law involved in the case.3. The learned Judge while referring the matter to a Division Bench has observed that the following questions arise for consideration:'1. Which Court should entertain and grant relief and by what process?2. How to enforce the order? Has it the force of a decree?3. Are the proceedings subject to appeal and revision, under the Karnataka Rent Control Act?4. Is the right personal to the tenant who has suffered eviction or is it heritable?5. Is the liability personal to the landlord or does it go with the building, so as to bind his heirs, successors, transferees?6. Wha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »