Karnataka Court October 1991 Judgments
Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Rajesab Hussainsab Kalburgi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-30-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4242; 1991(4)KarLJ726
M. Rama Jois, Ag. C.J. 1. We have noticed very disturbing state of affairs in several appeals coming before us against the awards made in references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which are barred by time by several years and awarding amount of compensation far more than what the claimants themselves had asked for. This Appeal preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, Gadag, aggrieved by the Judgment and Award made by the Civil Judge, Gadag, is one such and glaring instance too. 2. Two important questions of law arise for consideration in this Appeal. They are:- (1) If an application seeking reference to the Court under Section 18 of the Act praying for awarding-higher compensation is filed before the Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer after the expiry of 90 days, whether the Court has the power to condone the delay, to call for and to dispose of the reference on merits? (2) Even though by amending Section 25 of the Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sakarama Somayaji Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura, D.K. a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-29-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant364; ILR1992KAR2042
ORDER1. Hear. Issue rule, and by consent taken up for hearing.2. The writ petition is essentially one to advance the cause of public, who are adversely affected by the collapse of a bridge in Beloor village of Kundapura taluk. It is stated that there are about 50 to 60 houses and there is a river called Hire Hole flowing between thesaid village and Achalady village. Though the river dries up during summer it overflows during rainy and winter seasons. According to the petitioner he had put up a wooden bridge across the aforesaid river which was more than 150 feet in length and 4 feet in width. The bridge was being used for carrying head loads, men and cattle during rainy and winter seasons. This bridge was resting on wooden props which were being replaced as and when required. This bridge was the lifeline for the residents of the village Beloor in Kundapura taluk; similarly it formed the lifeline for the residents of the village situated on the other side of the river. The vegetation on...
Tag this Judgment!T. Raghav Rao and Another Vs. Ramakrishna Hospital (P.) Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1991
Reported in: [1993]200ITR565(KAR); [1993]200ITR565(Karn)
1. These appeals are presented against an interim order made in Writ Petition No. 3545 of 1990 and also rejecting the application - I.A. - II, made by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition praying for modification of the interim order. 2. Brief facts the case are these : Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 were the owners of a premises situate in Jayanagar in the City of Bangalore. An agreement was entered into between them and the first respondent for the sale of the said premises to the first respondent for a sum of Rs. 35,50,000. After the entering into of the agreement was reported to the income-tax authorities on November 26, 1989, they initiating action under section 269UD of the Act for acquiring the said property. Accordingly, the property was acquired and the Department paid Rs. 35,50,000 to the appellants. On receipt of the said amount according to the appellants, they paid Rs. 7,50,000 to their sisters and the balance had been deposited in I.D. B.I. bonds and other securities. ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sumyra Mekhri Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant315
ORDERM. Rama Jois, Acting C. J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is a citizen of India hailing from the State of Jammu and Kashmir and who has become a permanent resident of Bangalore from May 198S, has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 4 (1)(b) of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Admission to Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma (Medical and Dental) Courses Rules, 1987, ('the Rules' for short) as it stands after its amendment by notification dated 25-9-1990, which provides that no candidate other than an Indian citizen of Karnataka origin shall be eligible for appearing for the entrance test, unless he or she or his/her parent (father/mother) had been a resident of Karnataka State for a period of ten years or has owned or possessed landed property or house in Karnataka State.2. Brief facts of the case, are these : The petitioner is a citizen of India. She hails from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. She passed M.B.B.S. degree from Government Medical Colleg...
Tag this Judgment!J.P. Somasekhara Vs. Tahsildar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2702; 1991(3)KarLJ167
ORDERShyamasundar, J. 1. The petitioner, Member of a Co-operative Society, seeks in this Writ Petition that the Election scheduled for 27.10.1991 should be struck down and a Writ of Prohibition issued, the first respondent placed under restraint, precluding him from holding elections on 27.10.1991. The petitioner is not one of the candidates or one of those whose candidature was turned down, disabling him from contesting the election scheduled to be held on 27.10.1991. 2. After having heard Mr. D.S.Ramachandra Reddy for the petitioner for a considerable length of time, what I have been able to gather from his submissions is that the petitioner is interested in the continuance of the old Committee because of the situation said to have been caused with the total rout of all the candidates who had filed nominations to contest the election, with the sole exception of one person, who I find, is not made a party to this Writ Petition, with the result, Mr. Reddy says one man is going to be de...
Tag this Judgment!Bhoopalam R. Ramaswamy Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR3574; 1991(4)KarLJ678
ORDERHanumanthappa, J.1. Since the question of law involved in both the petitions is common, both the petitions are clubbed and a common Order is passed.For disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions, rank of the parties is referred to as in the trial Court.Plaintiff/Bank filed two separate suits on 3.7.81 for recovery of amounts mentioned in the respective suits. For want of Court fee, stamp paper of only Rs. 500/- was affixed on each plaint. Office of the trial Court after checking the Court fee noted that Court fee paid on the plaints as deficit. Hence, Court granted time to the plaintiff/Bank to pay deficit Court fee by 31.7.81. On 31.7.81 when cases were called the plaintiff did not make good the deficit Court fee. Hence the Court ordered to pay the same by 5.8.81. On 5.8.81 again Court fee was not paid. Order sheets read deficit Court fee not paid. Hence, cases were adjourned to 28.9.81. Again on 28.9.81 the cases were called on which day deficit Court fee was paid. Subsequently,...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sumyra Mekhri Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4130; 1992(1)KarLJ424
ORDERRama Jois, Ag. C.J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner who is a citizen of India hailing from the State of Jammu and Kashmir and who has become a permanent resident of Bangalore from May 1988, has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 4(1)(b) of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Admission to Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma (Medical and Dental) Courses Rules, 1987, ('the Rules' for short) as it stands after its amendment by notification dated 25-9-1990, which provides that no candidate other than an Indian citizen of Karnataka origin shall be eligible for appearing for the entrance test, unless he or she or his/her parent (father/mother) had been a resident of Karnataka State for a period of ten years or has owned or possessed landed property or house in Karnataka State.2. Brief facts of the case, are these: The petitioner is a citizen of India. She hails from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. She passed M.B.B.S. degree from Government Medical College, Srinag...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1991
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas348(Kar); ILR1992KAR2537; 1991(3)KarLJ110
G.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. This is a petition presented by a public limited company incorporated under the Mysore Companies Act, 1938, having its registered office at Sagar, Shimoga District. 2. At the annual general meeting of the company held on December 30, 1983, the following resolution was passed : 'Resolved that pursuant to the provisions of sections 309(1) and 310 and other applicable provision (if any) of the Companies Act, 1956, and subject to the approval of the Central Government being obtained, and subject to such modifications as the Central Government may direct and be agreed to by the Board (which the Board is hereby authorised to agree to), the company hereby accords its approval to the payment for a period of five years from July 1, 1983, of professional fees, as approved by the Board subject to a maximum of Rs. 15,000 per year, to Sri Amarnath Kamath, director of the company, for professional services being rendered by him to the company.' 3. The second petitioner, who i...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ganesha Vs. H.R. Engineering Works and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1991
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas250(Kar)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This application is filed by a creditor of the second respondent-company which is now ordered to be wound up. The circumstances in which the petition for winding up came to be filed are that the first respondent in this application had supplied and delivered three rubber lined tanks to the second respondent herein. The value of those tanks had not been paid. Therefore, it got issued a notice as contemplated under section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, demanding the value of the goods aforesaid. In spite of notice, the demand not having been complied with, the petition for winding up was filed under section 433(e) of the Companies Act. Thereafter, necessary steps were taken to advertise the petition pursuant to the orders of this court. Even so, there being no response from the second respondent, this court passed an order directing the winding up of the company. 2. Now, the second respondent-company has come forward with this application seeking recall of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sindhu Chits and Trading (P.) Ltd. Vs. Khayirunnissa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-23-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant281; [1991]70CompCas200(Kar); ILR1992KAR660; 1991(3)KarLJ89
Kedambadi Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the lower court dated April 18, 1988, made in an unnumbered execution case on the file of the Munsiff, Kunigal. At the time of admission, notice has been ordered; the respondent has failed to appear in spite of the service of notice and he has been treated as ex parte. The facts in this case are that the petitioner-decree-holder, through the official liquidator, has filed the order dated November 24, 1982, passed by this court (company court) directing judgment-debtors Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the decree-holder a sum of Rs. 553.40 together with interest. The office raised an objection stating that the decree is not transferred to this court as required under section 38 of the Civil Procedure Code and as such the execution is not maintainable. 2. The learned A. G. P. appearing for the official liquidator has submitted that the order passed by the company court under section 446 of the Companies Act can ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »