Karnataka Court September 1990 Judgments
Cicilia D
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR2848
K.A. Swami, J. 1. At the stage of admission, the learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent. Accordingly he has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent 2. As the Appeal can be disposed of on a short ground, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. The records of the Appeal are not necessary because on the basis of the findings recorded by the learned II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, the Appeal can be disposed of. 3. This Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 24-2-1990 passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore in R.A.No. 106/1985 affirming the Judgment and decree dated 22-11-1985 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Mangalore in O.S.No. 106/1980. 4. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. The appellant filed the aforesaid suit O.S.No. 106/1980 for a declaration that he is entitled to be in possession of the Plaint-A schedule property and for permanent injunction rest...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Rangappa Vs. Girijakumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3256; 1990(3)KarLJ234
Shivaraj Patil, J1. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this Writ Appeal are set out as follows:-1) The appellant was elected as a Member of Hatcholli Mandal Panchayat in Sirguppa Taluk, Bellary District. He was also the Chairman of the Sirguppa Agricultural Marketing Committee. Respondents-1 and 2 gave a representation to the 4th respondent (Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District, Bellary) to dismember the appellant under Section 12(2) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (for short the 'Act') on the ground that he is disqualified to be member as per Section 11(1)(j) of the Act inasmuch as he holds an office of profit being the Chairman of the Sirguppa Agricultural Market Committee. The 4th respondent issued a notice Annexure-C dated 2-6-1987 to the appellant asking him as to why he should not be dismembered from the said Mandal Panchayat stating that he was holding an office of profit and was disqual...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Ltd., Mysore Vs. the Chairman, Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant345
ORDER1. The petitioner Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Limited, Mysore entered into an agreement with the State Government for supply of electrical energy to the Company with the agreement providing for terms and conditions regarding minimum charges payable, mode of supply of energy, metering, payment for supply of energy inclusive of disconnection of supply in the event of nonpayment of arrears. The agreement also provided for rate per unit at which electricity so supplied is to be charged. After the Karnataka Electricity Board came into existence, similar agreements were executed between the petitioner and the Board for periods of five years duration at a time, subject to renewal after the expiry of such agreements. The Board has installed a meter in the premises of Sri Krishnarajendra Mills in order to caliberate the power consumed by the factory. The Meter Number is HT-17 and there are two meters installed in the celebrating system, one for the purpose of calculating the demand KVA and t...
Tag this Judgment!Miss Gayathri Vs. Bangalore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR3682
Mohan, C.J.1. The second respondent (herein) preferred a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 1755/1989 seeking a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Notification dated 9-8-1985 issued by the Bangalore University, partially in so far as it prohibited revising the ranking in respect of those candidates who secured enhanced marks on revaluation except declaration of class.2. The facts are as under: The second respondent herein was a student of Seshadripuram College, Bangalore. He appeared for the final B.Com., degree examination of Bangalore University under Registration No. 8627371 in the month of April 1988. He passed in his first attempt. In the said examination, the second respondent was declared to have been passed in II Class having secured total marks of 355 out of 600. Apprehending that his answer book has not been property valued, the second respondent made a representation to the respondent-1, praying for revaluation of the same. On revaluation, the Clause relating to revaluation is as under:...
Tag this Judgment!Tippanna Laxman Waghmode Vs. Godavaribai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4054; 1990(2)KarLJ326
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the original tenant. An eviction petition was filed by the present respondents seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The landlord stated that they are residing in a rented premises at Dharwad and that their landlord was pressing for the vacant possession of the said premises. Therefore, they intend to reside in the schedule premises at Hubli. Except the schedule premises and another small portion of the premises occupied by one Sundarabai the landlords have no other premises and that they are seeking eviction of the other tenant Sundarabai also. The tenant contested the claim. He stated that because he did not oblige the landlords for a higher rent this petition has been filed. His further case is that the landlords own several other properties. By an amendment the tenant also raised the plea that the area was declared as a Slum Area and without obtaini...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Sheygoor and Another Vs. Corporation of the City of Bangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant161; 1990(2)KarLJ460
ORDER1. The first petitioner is a practising Advocate of Bangalore Bar and the second petitioner is a Chartered Accountant. As public spirited persons to espouse public cause they have tiled this writ petition as public interest litigation and have sought for following reliefs in this writ petition :'(a) Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, prohibiting the respondent from collecting parking fee from the vehicle owners including the petitioners for using the vehicles and parking on the road side of Gandhinagar and Tank Bund road in Bangalore City; and, (b) Grant such other reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the circumstances of the case including the award of the case including the award of the costs of this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.' 2. The grounds on which they seek for relief are : (1) The Corporation has entrusted the second respondent the work to collect parking fee at two ...
Tag this Judgment!Y.R. Shanbhag Vs. Mohammed Gouse and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1990
Reported in: 1991ACJ699; 1990(2)KarLJ398
B.N. Krishnan, J.1. The appellant was first respondent in M.V.C. No. 30 of 1976 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uttar Kannada, Karwar and being aggrieved by the award passed in the said oase to pay compensation of Rs. 21,552/- to the claimant therein, has filed this appeal.2. The claim petition itself has been presented in somewhat unusual circumstances. The very case put forward by the claimant is that he was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. MEW 5144 belonging to the appellant herein on 10.1.1976 (incorrectly mentioned in the course of the petition and judgment as 11.1.1976) and that it met with an accident in between milestone No. 36/4 and 36/5 at Subguli and Sunkasal, Ankola Taluk and that the petitioner-claimant was driving the truck at that time in the employment of the owner. Nowhere in the course of the petition, claimant has stated that the vehicle was being driven by anyone else and much less that it was being driven rashly or negligently. Even in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Kamath Packaging Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1990
Reported in: 1991(31)ECC240; 1992(61)ELT548(Kar)
ORDERRajasekhara Murthy, J.1. Though the Writ Petition was heard on the interim prayer made by the petitioners, elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties and the main writ petition is disposed of by consent of both sides. 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and carrying on business under the name and style of B. S. Kamath and Company engaged in the manufacture of high density polyethylene woven sacks and other articles. The unit went into production in June 1987. 3. Though several contentions are urged in the writ petition relating to the seizure of documents relating to import of machinery which was cleared by the customs, and the validity of search and seizure conducted by the officers of the Customs Department on 25-4-1990, the arguments were confined to the seizure of documents relating to the import of raw materials and its utilisation and about the competency of the Customs Department to call upon the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›