Karnataka Court August 1990 Judgments
K. Venkoji Rao Vs. Abdul Khuddar Kureshi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1970
N.D.V. Bhat. J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 29-11-1989 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Mysore in R.A.No.21/1984. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under:2. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant- appellant for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 26-8-1975 executed by the defendant in favour of the former. Plaintiff also prayed for an alternative relief for the damages in the sum of Rs. 6,007-24 ps. Plaintiff's case can be briefly summarised as follows: Defendant was the owner of the suit house and plaintiff was a tenant in a portion of the same since 1966. Defendant entered into an agreement of sale of the suit property viz., the southern half of the entire property for Rs. 14,000/-. Rs. 2,000/- was received as advance by the defendant. Defendant agreed to complete the sale transaction within 3 months from the date of agreement. In the agreement it was. mentioned that...
Tag this Judgment!Telecom Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Scheduled Cast ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3320
S. Mohan, C.J.1. W.A.No. 1229/90. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:(1) The first respondent Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Minority Communities and Backward Classes Improvement. Centre, Bangalore-26, (hereinafter referred to as the first-respondent-Society), filed Writ Petition No. 17420/87, as a public cause litigation, questioning the authority of the Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the BDA') to make bulk allotment in favour of the appellant-Society. The aims and objects of the first-respondent-Society are to take such measures for the development of classes mentioned in its name and to make such endeavours and efforts to safeguard the interests of those classes, and such other activities aimed at the development of those classes in Karnataka. The Head Office of the first-respondent-Society is in Kasturbanagar and its activities consist of safeguarding the rights of persons of the said classes and to ensure that the statutory authorities and other auth...
Tag this Judgment!Simpson and Group Companies Workers and Staff Union Vs. Amco Batteries ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR708]; ILR1990KAR3568; 1990(3)KarLJ222
1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is presented by the defendant against the ad-interim order of injunction dated August 14, 1990 passed on I.A. No. 1 by XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 10573 of 1990. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against defendant-appellant seeking the following reliefs :- '.... a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Union, its members, associates or anybody acting through or for them - (i) from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the free movement of plaintiff's executives, contractors, staff, suppliers and other public from entering into and out of plaintiff's Hebbal plant; (ii) from interfering or obstructing the free movement of cars/vehicles and lorries carrying raw materials, intermediaries, end products into and of plaintiff's Hebbal plant; (iii) from endangering the life of persons, contractors, executives, staff of plaintiff and proper...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mrs. G. Durga Nageswari Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR14; 1990(3)KarLJ142
Rama Jois, J. 1.The petitioner, who had applied for the post of Instructor of Chemistry on the establishment of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, has presented this petition questioning the validity of Statute 30 of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.2. The brief facts of the case are these:- The 1st respondent University was established under the provisions of the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963. On 8th September, 1984 applications were invited by the University for the posts of Instructors in Chemistry. The petitioner, who possessed the qualification prescribed for the post, applied pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The Selection Committee constituted for the purpose interviewed the petitioner and other applicants. The Selection Committee selected three persons and arranged them in the order of merit. The petitioner was at Sl. No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was at Sl. No. 3. The Board of Regents however selected the 2nd respondent fo...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkatachalam Vs. G.M. Mascarenhas
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR197; 1990(3)KarLJ479
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 13th March, 1990 made by the learned Probate Judge of this Court in Probate C.P.No. 13/1989.2. The facts Leading to this appeal may be stated briefly and they are as follows:One Dr. G.M. Mascarenhas filed Probate C.P.No. 13/1989 in this Court seeking probate of the last Will and testamentary disposition of one Miss. A.B. Madappa also known as Babs, since deceased. The Court admitted the petition arid issued direction for citation, in one issue of Times of India dated 2-9-1989, that direction was carried into effect by the petitioner in the Probate Court. But even before the citation was given effect to by the Court, the appellant before us had entered caveat in Probate Court and, therefore, the question arose in the Probate Court whether the appellant before us could be said to have locus standi to enter caveat. In deciding that question, the learned Judge has considered the provisions made in Section 283(1)(c) o...
Tag this Judgment!Munegowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3668
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. This case affords the best illustration as to how callous the authorities incharge of the land acquisition would be, which deserves the highest condemnation by us.2. A notification under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued as early as 6-4-1977. When notice was issued to the petitioner herein, he preferred his objections. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 6-2-1980 denotifying these lands. That was gazetted in the Karnataka Gazette dated 21-2-1980. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner issued a notification purporting to be under Section 3(4) of the Act on 9-4-1984 to complete the acquisition. Therefore, under these circumstances rightly it is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that what has been done is not only contrary to all established law but even exhibited thorough ignorance of the proceedings and therefore he prayed that the notificat...
Tag this Judgment!Somashankarappa Vs. Shah Misrimal Indramal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-22-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3896
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is the landlord; he sought eviction of the respondent under Section 21(1)(b), (h) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act, for short), in the year 1980. In the year 1988, he filed LA. No. IV in the trial Court seeking the amendment of the main application, by introducing a new ground under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act.2. The trial Court rejected the application holding that the alleged acquisition of two premises by the tenant was in the name of his two sons and that the petitioner nowhere contended that the respondent and his sons constitute a Hindu undivided family. Trial Court, further held that those two premises were not vacant and were not available to the respondent to be occupied at the time when the petitioner filed eviction case against him. Thus the substantial reasons for rejecting the application for amendment of the eviction petition, was on the merits of the new ground; in the course of its order, trial Court re...
Tag this Judgment!Sharat Chandra Lingappa Koshti Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR862; 1990(2)KarLJ293
Rama Jois, J.1. This Writ Appeal is presented against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition of the petitioner, who is an Executive Engineer in the services of the Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation. The learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that Government was the appointing authority to the post of Executive Engineer and therefore the contention of the petitioner that the Municipal Corporation was the Appointing Authority was inaccurate and therefore the order of suspension was made by the Competent Authority. The second contention of the petitioner before the learned single Judge which was also rejected was that the suspension order was not justified as there was no scope for the petitioner to tamper with the records.2. We heard the matter on the last occasion. As the learned Counsel for the Appellant relying on Sections 82 and 84 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') had contended that...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Mohammed Kunhi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-21-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR1500
K.A. Swami, J. 1. The appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 21-2-1975 passed in O.S.No. 30/1975 by the Civil Judge, Coorg.2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs.3. The suit was filed for a declaration that the suit schedule property i.e., 'All that redeemed coffee saguvali Mali bearing the Survey Number 1/10 of 204.42 acres in area situated in Kundacheri Village, Bhagamandala Nadu, Mercara Taluk, Coorg District, Karnataka State' is a Redeemed Estate and also for a direction to the defendant to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 3,57,777-81 with current interest thereon and costs.4. The Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit out of which the present Appeal arises. They have prayed for the following reliefs:'(i) issue a Writ in -the nature of Mandamus directing respondent 1 to intimate the 2nd respondent that the tenure of the land is 'redeemed coffee saguvali malai' and therefore the petitioners are entitled to the grant o...
Tag this Judgment!Seshumull M. Shah Vs. Sayed Abdul Rashid and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-20-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant273; 1991(1)KarLJ320
1. This second appeal has been preferred by defendant No. 1 arising out of the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for declaration of title and possession in respect of suit lands as also damages for the cutting of the Tamarind tree by defendant No. 1. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have concurrently found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, namely, the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Kolar, dated 7-1-1980 in Regular Appeal No. 23/1978 this appeal has been preferred.2. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed :The plaintiff was admittedly the mother-in-law of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 is a purchaser from defendant No. 2 of the suit lands. The case of the plaintiff is that her husband was an Engine Driver and she used to reside with him. By a registered sale deed, dated 29th March, 1936, the plaintiff acquired title to the suit lands in consideration of her mehr dues. She was in pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »