Karnataka Court November 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.
Dr. G.N. Shivashankar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-27-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4410; 1991(3)KarLJ4
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The Appeal is directed against the Order dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.2. Briefly stated the facts are these: We are concerned with land admeasuring 1A-30G bearing Sy. No. 658/2A and land admeasuring 1A-37G bearing Sy. No. 658/2B in Chamarajanagara Taluk, Mysore District. These lands belong to the appellant. On 4th March 1985 a Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire the lands for the public purpose of the Regional Silk Research Centre. A Notification dated 4th December 1986 was issued under Section 6 of the Act. On 23rd January 1987 the appellant filed a Writ Petition in this Court (being W.P. No. 1044 of 1987) and obtained on 23rd January 1987 an interim stay of further proceedings. The Writ Petition was heard and disposed of on 4th October 1988. The learned Judge found from the records produced by the Government Pleader that the enquiry under Section 5A did not meet the requirements of law f...
Smt. Bablabai Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2877; 1993(42)ECC119; ILR1991KAR4474; 1992(1)KarLJ342
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The wife of the detenu has filed the above writ petition, against an order of detention made under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act ('the Act' for short). The order is dated 26-10-1990 made by the Government of India. The order was served on the detenu only 23-4-1991 as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The grounds in support of the order of detention served on the detenu states that the officers of the enforcement had information that the detenu was returning home on 12-7-1990 after making 'havala payments' with sheets of addresses of persons to whom payments had been made, etc. Earlier, on the basis of intelligence gathered by the said officers the residential premises of the detenu was searched by them on 7-4-1990, as a result of which 15 sheets of documents were seized. However, the detenu was not available at the time of search. On 12-7-1990 while the detenu was returning home of...
B.H. Honnahalage Gowda Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4408; 1992(1)KarLJ522
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant.2. We are concerned with land measuring 5 guntas bearing Survey No. 51/4 of Aremaranahalli Village, Gubbi Taluk. The appellant is the owner of land contiguous thereto. It was his content/on that the owner of the land in petition was obliged by the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to offer the land in petition to him and that the sale by her to the 4th respondent was, therefore, void.3. The appellant made an application to the 2nd respondent Assistant Commissioner to declare the sale in favour of the 4th respondent void and, on 2nd February 1980 the Assistant Commissioner so ordered. The 4th respondent thereupon filed a Revision Petition before the first respondent Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Revision was allowed and the Tribunal held that the la...
Gururao Vs. Subba Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR429; 1991(3)KarLJ223
K.A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of admission, the respondent is notified. Accordingly, he has put in appearance through Counsel. Records of the suit are also received.2. As the Appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted. Paper books are also filed. Hence it is heard for final disposal.3. This Appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 10-9-1990 passed by the learned XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City CCH. No. 14, in O.S. No. 372 of 1981. The respondent is the Defendant.4. The suit was filed for possession of the suit schedule premises and also for a declaration that the occupation of suit schedule premises by the defendant is unlawful and further to direct him to vacate the suit schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same and pay damages.5. The suit schedule property is a house bearing No. 388, A Cross, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-11 measuring 40x31 ft. and bounded on the East by: Vacant site of CITB; West by: House N...
Betty Suresh Mahindra Vs. Marthanda Singh Mahindra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR735
ORDERKedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this Application under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for appointment of an Administrator pending disposal of the main proceedings touching the validity of the Will and six Codicils of the deceased Suresh C. Mahindra for grant of Letters of Administration of the Will and six Codicils annexed with such Administrator being delegated with all the power and rights of general administration other than the rights of distributing such assets of the deceased subject to the immediate and absolute control of this Court.2. In support of the application 1st petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein she has averred that she together with and on behalf of her two minor children have filed a petition for grant of Letters of Administration with the Will and six Codicils. The estate of late Suresh C. Mahindra is very large and of considerable value and the bulk of it is in the State of Karnataka, but lessor and some wha...
Venkatachalaiah and Another Vs. Nanjundaiah (Deceased by L.Rs.) and Ot ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant270; ILR1992KAR984; 1991(3)KarLJ258
1. One Nanjundaiah filed a suit in O.S, No. 58/78 before the Civil Judge, Tiptur, for declaration of title over the suit properties and permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit land. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Tiptur, on. 30-1-1982. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 challenged this judgment before the learned District Judge, Tumkur, in R.A. No. 4/82 and the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 5-11-1962. Aggrieved by this judgment, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have come up with this Second Appeal.2. During the pendency of this appeal, Nanjundaiah, the plaintiff died and his wife and Krishna Gowda were brought On record as legal representatives of Nanjundaiah. The case of the plaintiff was, that the suit schedule property belonged to one Dasaru Chikkanna, that he purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 9-11-1955 in the name of the first defendant his brother-in-law, an...
Manjunatha House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Karna ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4487; 1991(3)KarLJ8
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. Whether a land, which could be acquired under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short 'the UL (C & R) Act'], cannot be acquired under any other laws or enactments providing for acquisition of such land by reason of the provision in Section 42 of the UL (C & R) Act, is the short question for our Decision in this Writ Petition.2. Material facts giving rise to the need for Decision on the said question, briefly stated, are these:Manjunatha House Building Co-operative Society Limited - the petitioner - Society, which wanted to purchase lands of Tavarekere village situated in the out-skirts of Bangalore, for the purpose of formation of a lay-out of residential building sites, entered into Agreements in the year 1975 with the owners of such lands for their purchase and took possession of them as well. 2 acres 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 14/16 of Tavarekere was one of such lands, for which an Agreement of purchase had come into existence on 30-12-...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Subhas Venkappa Savalker and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: [1993]77CompCas362(Kar); ILR1992KAR633; 1991(4)KarLJ194
K.A Swami, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the trial court is justified in law in awarding interest at 6 per cent. per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 1,01,000 from the date of suit till the date of realisation instead of awarding interest at the contractual rate on Rs. 2,28,733.50 from the date of suit till the date fixed in the decree for payment.2. The plaintiff-bank advanced two loans to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. A sum of Rs. 71,000 was advanced on May 19, 1976, and a further sum of Rs. 30,000 was advanced on November 22, 1976. Of course, the sum of Rs. 71,000 was not paid in a lump sum, but it was paid in four installments. However, for the purpose of this case, it is not necessary to go into that aspect of the matter because the defendants have not challenged that part of the decree passed by the trial court.3. The plaintiff filed the suit on September 10, 1984, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,28,733.50 inclusive of interest at the a...
Abdul Rahiman and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3277; ILR1991KAR4457; 1992(1)KarLJ533
ORDER1. In these writ petitions the detenus who are detained under S. 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act ('the COFEPOSA Act' for short) have challenged their detentions. 2. The petitioners were part of the crew of a vessel (fishing trawler) Al-Sahara. These petitioners are Pakistani nationals, though this has no material bearing on the questions raised in the writ petitions. 3. The authorities of the Customs Department and DRI had information that silver was being smuggled into India from abroad. On the basis of this information they boarded Coast Guard Vessel Varuna on 13-4-91. After two days of continuous sea patrolling the Coast Guard Vessel was on the waters of Malpe area on 15-4-91 and at about 10-05 hours the aforesaid fishing trawler Al-Sahara was sighted. The officers found the movement of the vessel suspicious and the said fishing trawler tried to move away from the Coast Guard Vessel on seeing the Coast Guard Vessel by changin...
Nenmal Shankarlal Parmer Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (inv ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)102CTR(Kar)64; ILR1991KAR4527; [1992]195ITR582(KAR); [1992]195ITR582(Karn); 1992(1)KarLJ528
ORDER UNDER S. 132(5)--Cash voluntarily offered by person searched--Order under s. 132(5), invalid.HELD :There is no seizure of money as the same has been offered voluntarily and, therefore, passing of an order under s. 132(5) does not arise as it is only in respect of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized under the provisions referred to therein an order could be made under s. 132(5).**Planning for repelling search and seizureThis case law is of no direct assistance for any planning. However, since invocation of power under s. 132 is a serious invasion on the freedom and privacy of the citizen, it can be resorted to only in strict compliance with the legal provisions. So this case is a warning signal to the searching authorities that they should confine to the four corners of the statutory provision. If they outstep, the aggrieved assessee can approach the court to restrain them from such action. The main ground on which the search proceedings may be chal...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »