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.
Ashika Vishal Shah Vs. Prataprai Manekchand Mehta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4533; 1991(3)KarLJ371
Kedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. By consent of the parties these Revision Petitions are taken up for final disposal.2. The Revision Petition No. 4113/1991 is directed against the order of the 4th Additional City Civil Judge, passed on I.A.I. in Execution Case No. 978/1991 dated 6-9-1991 and Revision Petition No. 3981/1991 is likewise directed against the order dated 2-9-1991 passed by the Civil Judge, in Execution Case No. 1002/1991. Since both the Revision Petitions are pertaining to the transfer decree in the Summary Suit No. 5/1988 and the common question involved, they are disposed of by a common order.3. Petitioners are decree holders and respondents are the Judgment Debtors in Execution Case Nos. 1002/1991 and 978/1991 respectively. The petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 4113/1991 filed an I.A.I. in Execution Case No. 978/1991 under Order 21 Rule 30 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to dispense with the notice and order of attachment. In Civil Revision Petition No. 3981/1991, ...
Central Board of Direct Taxes and Another Vs. H.M.T. Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4185; [1993]199ITR144(KAR); [1993]199ITR144(Karn)
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. These are cross-appeals. The assessee (the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2082 of 1990) filed the writ petition. Thereon, it got some relief. Its appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the learned single judge (see : [1991]188ITR457(KAR) ) in so far as he refused the balance of the relief that was sought. Writ Appeal No. 2137 of 1990 is file by the Revenue to impugn the judgment and order to the extent that it gives to the assessee some relief. 2. The assessee is a Government company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It manufactures machine tools and has acquired extensive knowledge, experience and technology in that regard. It entered into an agreement with the Federal Military Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the establishment of a machine tools industry in Nigeria on June 29, 1979. The agreement provided that the Nigerian Government and the assessee would collaborate to incorporate a company under the laws of Nigeria. The co...
Medar Nagamma Vs. Medar Sanna Sivanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR650; 1991(3)KarLJ217
B. Jagannatha Hegde, J.1. Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 filed a suit in O.S.No. 157/1975 before the Principal Munsiff, Bellary, for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 8 from taking delivery of the schedule building in pursuance of an order passed in H.R.C.No. 69/1972 and from collecting rent from defendant No. 9. The suit was decreed on 5.10.1977. Defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 8 filed an appeal before the Civil Judge, Bellary, in R.A.No. 108/1977. That appeal was dismissed on 12.8.1980. Defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 8 have thereafter filed this second appeal.2. The suit property and another item was owned by one Medar Gurubasappa and he mortgaged the suit properties to one Mudnur Gangappa on 9.9.1946. Later, Medar Gurubasappa sold one of the Items mortgaged, i.e., the suit property, to the brother of the plaintiff on 24.4.1948. The plaintiff in turn purchased the suit property from his brother on 28.1.1957. Mundlur Gangappa transferred his mortgage's right to one ...
Ningegowda Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2602; 1991(3)KarLJ170
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. This Writ Petition is directed against the orders, Annexure-A and B, made by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, respondents 3 and 2 herein respectively. 2. It is undisputed that two acres of land in Sy.No. 108 of Ankanahalli, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, was granted in favour of respondents Rangaiah by the competent authority by an order dated 12-6-1982 under the Karnataka Land Grant rules subject to certain conditions. Saguvali Chit was also issued to him on that day itself. It is again undisputed that out of the granted land, 1 acre was sold by the grantee in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 12-7-1974 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and that since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. 3. After the conning into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the Act for short), respondent-4 filed an applica...
L. Ramakrishnappa Vs. Presiding Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4421; 1991(4)KarLJ654
Rama Jois, J.1. In these Writ Appeals, following two questions of law arise for consideration:(1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with any illegality committed in the course of holding election to the offices of any authority/body, which is regulated by statutory provisions, if the law provides for filing an election dispute challenging the legality of the election of the candidates declared elected?(2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, then under what circumstances this Court should exercise or should decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution?2. Brief and undisputed facts of the case are these: The 2nd respondent - The Taluka Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society (T.A.P.C.M.S) is a Co-operative Society constituted and functioning under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 ('the Act' for short). The area of its operation is Banga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›