Karnataka Court December 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.
Mohammed Haji Alavi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR623; 1991(3)KarLJ745
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, by challenging the validity of the order of his detention made by the Karnataka Government under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') with a view to preventing him from engaging in keeping and transporting smuggled goods, has sought for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the respondents directing his release from detention.2. The order of detention under challenge in this Writ Petition has been made on 15-7-1991. Pursuant to that order of detention, the petitioner has been detained on 31-7-1991. That order of detention has been, thereafter, confirmed by the Karnataka Government on 3-10-1991.3. The principal ground, on which the validity of the said order of detention is challenged by Sri J. Jeshtmal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the grounds of detention did not disclos...
United Commercial Bank, Bangalore Vs. B.M. Mahadeva Babu and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant294; [1994]80CompCas845(Kar); 1991(4)KarLJ200
1. This appeal is preferred by an unsuccessful plaintiff against the Judgment and decree passed by the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 1765/1980. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are as under.The plaintiff filed a suit against defendants 1 and 2 praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 17,348.15p, together with costs and current interest at the contractual rate. Defendant No. 1 (since deceased) was the son of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. I was a brick manufacturer and he approached the plaintiffBank for financial assistance and accordingly over-draft facility to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- was sanctioned by the plaintiff Bank in favour of defendant No. 1 on 23-3-1974. On the same day defendant No. 1 also executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 was the guarantor for the said loan and she also executed an agreement of guarantee to the effect as evidenced by Ex.P. 3. It was agreed between the part...
indo-american Hybrid Seeds and Others Vs. India Tourism Development Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant414; ILR1992KAR1103; 1991(4)KarLJ237
ORDERSwami, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21-3-1986 passed by the learned VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 1222/1985. 2. The appeal is confined to disallowance of interest by the trial Court as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed interest on a sum of Rs. 1,35,644.50 at the rate of 18% per annum. On a sum of Rs. 566.50, it claimed interest at that rate from 23rd October, 1982 and on the remaining sum of Rs. 1,35,078/- it claimed interest at 16% from 2nd November, 1982. The trial Court has disallowed the interest on the ground that there was no agreement for payment of interest on the suit transactions. 3. In this appeal, the plaintiff-appellant has claimed a sum of Rs. 19,684.60 as interest on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,35,644.50 at the rate of 1896 per annum.4. Therefore, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court is justified in law in disallowing interest as claimed by the...
Syed Kareem Vs. Zarina Bi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1991
Reported in: I(1992)DMC536; ILR1992KAR822; 1991(4)KarLJ217
ORDERM.M. Mirdhe, J.1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21-12-1988 passed by the Court of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Harihar, on I.A.No. 1 in Criminal Misc. No. 44 of 1988.2. The respondent has not come to the Court, she has sent a letter and also her objections for consideration of this Court.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner fully and perused the records of the case.4. The respondent has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner claiming maintenance from him. The respondent has also filed I.A.No. 1 for grant of ad-interim maintenance. The Court below has passed an order granting ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to the respondent until the disposal of I.A.No. 1. This is only an interim order passed by the Court till the disposal of I.A.No. 1. The petitioner himself has admitted in his evidence that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised ...
Bhaskar Hanamatse Meharwade Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3985; ILR1992KAR2272
ORDER1. This Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 18-9-91 passed by the Additional Munsiff and II Additional J.M.F.C., Ranebennur in C.C. No. 49/89. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case. 3. The police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner on 16-1-1990 for the offences punishable under S. 279 and 304A I.P.C. and also for the offences under S. 89(A) and (B) of the M.V. Act on the allegation that the petitioner on 19-12-1988 at about 8-30 p.m. drove his motor-cycle bearing No. CEW 9358 on Poona-Bangalore road from the bus-stand side in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed against the deceased Hanumanthappa in front of Kambli Society and caused grievous injuries to his head resulting in his death. The evidence has commenced in the Court below and the prosecution has examined some witnesses. The pros...
Chikka Kullegowda Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-10-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4557; 1991(3)KarLJ142
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. These Writ Petitions are by the purchasers of certain bits of lands in Sy. Nos. 160 of Menasikyathanahalli village and 96 of Heggur village, T. Narasipur Taluk, Mysore District. They have challenged in these petitions the legality and correctness of the orders made under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the Act for short) by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner-respondents, respondents 2 and 3 in all the petitions respectively.2. Brief facts of the case for the disposal of these petitions are as follows:-38 guntas of (and in Sy. No. 160/16 was granted in favour of Basava @ Papa, father of respondent-4 on 25-6-1968. It was sold to Chikka Kullegowda, petitioner in W.P. No. 15823 of 1990 by the grantee's son Lingaiah, respondent-4, and his mother Siddamma by a registered sale deed dated 23-9-1968. Out of 2 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy. No. 160/4 granted on 25-6-1968 to responde...
Parvathibai Vs. Dattatreya Janardhan Dhopeshwarkar (Delted)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR929; 1991(3)KarLJ708
ORDERKedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders passed on I.A. Nos. VII and VIII by the Court of the Second Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, dated 3-4-1986 in Execution Case No. 26 of 1964 rejecting the I.As. holding that the proceeding has come to an end after the disposal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court on its file.2. Since these Revision Petitions arise out of a common order they are clubbed and disposed of by this Court by a common Order.3. Brief facts of the case are:Smt. Parvati Bai wife of Balram Haibatti the petitioner, has filed two applications I.As. VII and VIII, the former under Order 21 Rule 16 and the latter under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'). Her first application is for seeking permission to continue the execution and the second one is for taking the certified copy of the plan along with the separate list as part of the final decree, and possess...
Psi Data Systems Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2163; 1991(3)KarLJ243; (1993)ILLJ73Kant
ORDER1. In this writ petition, two important questions of law are for determination. They are : (1) Whether the Tribunal without deciding the question that the purchaser of a closed industry is successor-in-interest, can pass an order to implead the purchaser as a necessary party in a dispute pending between his vendor and his workman (2) Whether the Tribunal possesses a Power of Review under Section 11(1) and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure 2. This writ petition, which was posted for preliminary hearing was heard finally on the consent of the learned Advocates and the following order is made. One M/s Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd., was running a factory at No. 38A, II Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore. It has closed its undertaking on January 28, 1965. The workmen represented by the second respondent have raised an industrial dispute against the closure on the allegation it is a lock-out to victimize the workmen for thei...
Parvathamma Vs. Lokanath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR644
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Appeal by the defendant is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 30th May 1991 passed by the learned X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in O.S. No. 1877/1980 (Original Number O.S. 753/1977).2. The Plaintiffs are the heirs of Ramabhadraiah Setty. First plaintiff is the adopted son, second plaintiff is the widow and third plaintiff is the daughter. Second defendant is also another daughter of late Ramabhadraiah Setty. The plaintiffs have sought for possession of the suit schedule property. First defendant claims to have been in possession of the suit schedule property under an Agreement of Sale dated 21.10.1965 - Ex.P5. The suit has been filed on 15-10-1977.3. Before the Trial Court one of the major issues contested by the parties was as to whether the relief of specific performance was barred by time?3.1. The Trial Court on considering the evidence on record has held that limitation, under Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act. commen...
Gouri Bi Vs. Khemraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1991
Reported in: I(1992)ACC583; 1992ACJ623; ILR1992KAR597; 1991(3)KarLJ703
Krishnan, J.1. These 105 Appeals have been preferred by the various claimants who filed claim petitions seeking to recover compensation in respect of either the injuries sustained by them or the death of someone on whom they were dependent for their sustenance, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petitions preferred by them under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). The Tribunal without recording any evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident in which the several, persons sustained injuries or died, could not be held to arise out of the user of the motor vehicles and as such it had no jurisdiction to try the claim petitions.2. The case put forward by the claimants in all the cases in brief is as hereunder:On 30th October, 1985 a tanker truck bearing registration No. MST- 6277 belonging to the 2nd respondent filled with motor spirit at Wadla Terminal, Bombay left Bombay towards its destination viz., Hyderabad. On 1-11-1985 at about 7.20 A.M. it was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »