Karnataka Court October 1991 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.
R. Veeranna Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3995; 1991(3)KarLJ534
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. The order impugned in these petitions being common and the facts and circumstances and the question of law arising out of them also being similar, I propose to dispose of them by the following common order. 2. The petitioners have questioned the legality and correctness of the orders, Annexure-C and D, made by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, 2 and 1 herein, respectively. 3. Narasimhadas, father of Tukaram, respondent-4 herein, was granted 9 acre 73 cents of land in Sy. No. 844 of Kamalapura Village, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District by the Competent Authority under the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue of Madras on 7-9-1957 subject to certain condition. Accordingly, saguvali chit or title deed was also issued to him on that day. 4. However, the grantee Narasimhadas sold the land in bits. The transactions are as follows:- 1) R. Veeranna, petitioner in W.P. No. 9162/1986 purchased 2 acres on 24-4-1978 from Tippanna who purchased it fr...
P.M. Machaiah Vs. Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4208; 1992(1)KarLJ510
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. Since the question of law involved in these cases is common, they are clubbed together and a common order is passed. 2. W.A.No. 2204/1989 is directed against the order passed by our brother Doddakale Gowda, J., in W.P.No. 15457/1988 dated 16-8-1989 rejecting the petitioner's request therein by dismissing the said Writ Petition following the earlier Decision of this Court in MYSORE SUGAR CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. MANAGEMENT, MYSORE SUGAR CO. LTD. The prayer of the petitioner in W.P.No. 15457/1988 was to quash the order of termination of the petitioner therein as Chief Vigilance Officer from the services of the respondent Company therein. The grounds of attack to the order of termination were (1) the termination was not a valid one as the same was not passed by the Board of Directors of the Company; (2) that the enquiry was not in conformity with principles of natural justice; (3) the termination was harsh and unreasonable and (4) the termination was...
Revansiddappa Vs. Susheelabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR318; 1991(4)KarLJ685
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of admission, respondent has put in appearance. Therefore, the C.R.P. is admitted & it is heard for final disposal.2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 28-8-1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bijapur in R.R.No. 11/1986 confirming the order dated 6-1-1986 passed by the learned.Principal Munsiff, Bijapur in H.R.C. No. 89/1981.3. The respondent-landlord filed the aforesaid H.R.C.No. 89/1981 for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner-tenant resisted the petition.4. The trial Court rejected the case of the landlord pleaded under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act. However, it allowed the petition and passed an order of eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the petitioner-tenant preferred a revision petition before the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›