Skip to content

Karnataka Court July 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.

Jul 03 1991

Bhojaiah Vs. Samsan Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Jul-03-1991

Reported in: ILR1992KAR2265; 1991(4)KarLJ23

N.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. This Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 7-3-1990 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Mandya in Miscellaneous No. 12/1986. The facts relevant for the disposal of this Revision Petition, briefly stated, are as under:2. Dr. Hemavathi B. Shetty and her husband K. Bhaskar Shetty were running respondent-1 Industries which is a Private Limited Company. The instant respondent-2 State Bank of Mysore, Mandya Branch, Mandya has filed a suit against the said M/s. Samsan Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., and its Managing Director and had obtained a decree. The said decree was put in execution in Ex. Case No. 173/1976 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Mandya. The State Bank of Mysore, that is to say, the instant respondent-2 had sought for sale of 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties consisting of both moveable and immoveable properties. In the Court sale held on 26-7-1979, the instant petitioner and respondent-3 - S. Mumtaz Sheriff had purchased the 'A'...


Jul 02 1991

Karnataka Seeds Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Jul-02-1991

Reported in: ILR1991KAR2611

S. Mohan, C.J. 1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment dated January 4, 1991, rendered in W.Ps. Nos. 11813 of 1987 and 6022 and 6380 of 1988 by our learned brother Shivashankar Bhat, J. 2. The short facts are as follows : The appellant-firm is a dealer in hybrid and improved seeds. They are sold by the appellant on production in the market. Originally, seeds were taxed under entry 9 ('cereals') of Schedule IV of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act'). The goods falling under Schedule IV are declared goods. Therefore they are protected by the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The rate of tax was 4 per cent. The taxation in relation to seeds as cereals prevailed up to 1980. In some cases, the taxing authorities took the view that seeds will not fall under the entry 'cereals'. Therefore, sales tax was levied under section 5(1) of the Act, the charging section. As a result the levy was at multiple points. Those levies were also subject to surcharge and additional ...


Jul 02 1991

Khaja MohadIn Vs. Tahera Begum

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Jul-02-1991

Reported in: ILR1992KAR261; 1991(4)KarLJ110

Hiremath, J.1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the trial Court represented by their guardian maternal grand-father B. Mohamed Saheb. It may be stated that the 1st plaintiff was 11 years of age and the 2nd plaintiff 8 years of age when the suit was filed in the year 1973. The respondents in this appeal were the defendants in the same order in the suit. Ghouse B the 3rd defendant is their mother. Defendant-4 is the father. The 3rd defendant purchased the suit property on 21 -3-1964 for Rs. 1,000/- for herself and her two minor sons the present appellants. On 9-2-1970 under Ex.D-3 the same defendant-3 mother sold away the same property to the 2nd defendant Meenakshamma for Rs. 2,000/-. Later under Ex.D- 2 the suit property was sold by defendant-2 to defendant-1 for the same consideration, namely, Rs. 2,000/-. Later it appears defendants-3 and 4 changed the character of their possession to one of tenants under defendant-2 after defendant-3 sold the property to her. H.R.C. 14/72, on t...


Jul 01 1991

K. Babu and Another Vs. Datta Rao and Others

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Jul-01-1991

Reported in: AIR1992Kant290; 1991(2)KarLJ301

1. The only point thatarises for consideration in this MiscellaneousSecond Appeal is-'Whether the bequest under the will executed by Guruvappa on 23rd January 1931 was in favour of K. Babu Rao,' Jaka Bai, Vasudeva Rao and Seethu or was it in favour of the entire Kavaru of Seethu with the incidents of law of Aliyasanthana?'.2. On 22-1-1931 one Guruvappa resident of Kodialbail village within the limits of Mangalore town executed a will Ex, P-l bequeathing his moveable and immoveable properties. In Ex.P-1, he states that he is a retired Sharaff of Imperial Bank and a person following Atiyasarithana System of Law, that he has not derived any benefit from his Aliyasanthana family and that the properties that are subject-matter of the will we're all his self-acquisitions and that he has been enjoying the same as such. He cancels an earlier will executed by him on 12-11-1991 and stipulates that his son Ram Mohan by his deceased first wife and his Aliyasanthana heirs are not entitled to inheri...


Jul 01 1991

S.K. Beeranna Vs. Kwality Restaurant

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Jul-01-1991

Reported in: ILR1991KAR2599; 1991(2)KarLJ602

Mohan, C.J.1. Residential premises No. 48 (Old No. 1/3), situated at Linden Street, Palmgrove Road, Austin Town, Bangalore, is owned by the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 291 of 1990. That was leased to the 1st respondent in the year 1969. Subsequent to the lease, occupation of the 1st respondent was regularised under Sections 318 and 31C of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as the Act). On or before 20-8-1976, the 1st respondent acquired 2 residential premises, viz., No. 59, 1st Floor, Residency Road, Bangalore, and No. 26, Wellington Street, Bangalore. In view of the said acquisition, the appellants/landlords filed a petition under Section 21A of the Act before the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, Bangalore-1, for eviction of the 1st respondent. The case was registered as No. HRC.ACC.21.A(1)/1989 on his file. By an order dated 27-9-1989 the House Rent and Accommodation Controller directed the eviction of the 1st respondent under Section 21A(2) of ...


Jul 01 1991

Babu Rao Vs. Datta Rao

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Jul-01-1991

Reported in: ILR1991KAR3262

B. Jagannatha Hegde, J. 1. The only point that arises for consideration in this Miscellaneous Second Appeal is - . 'Whether the bequest under the Will executed by Guruvappa on 23rd January 1931 was in favour of K. Babu Rao, Jaka Bai, Vasudeva Rao and Seethu or was it in favour of the entire Kavaru of Seethu with the incidents of law of Aliyasanthana?' 2. On 22-1-1931 one Guruvappa resident of Kodialbail village within the limits of Mangalore town executed a will Ex.P-1 bequeathing his moveable and immoveable properties. In Ex.P-1, he states that he is a retired - Shroff of Imperial Bank and a person following Aliyasanthana System of Law, that he has not derived any benefit from his Aliyasanthana family and that the properties that are subject-matter of the will were all his self- acquisitions and that he has been enjoying the same as such. He cancels an earlier will executed by him on 12-11-1991 and stipulates that his son Ram Mohan by his deceased first wife and his Aliyasanthana heir...


Jul 01 1991

Bank of Baroda Vs. Mysore Chip Boards Ltd.

Court: Karnataka

Decided on: Jul-01-1991

Reported in: ILR1991KAR3271; 1991(2)KarLJ310

B. Jagannatha Hegde, J. 1. The facts, necessary for the disposal of these two Appeals, may be stated thus:- 2. The plaintiff-Bank filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 92,38,796-13 from the defendants. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 4 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of exparte order of temporary injunction restraining the first defendant-Company from alienating in any manner any of the moveable or immoveable properties including machinery, equipment, accessories, pending disposal of the case. The learned Civil Judge passed an ex-parte order of temporary injunction as prayed for. After service of notice, the first defendant filed an application I.A. No. 6 for vacating the exparte order of temporary injunction granted in I.A. No. 4. The plaintiff immediately filed an application I.A. No. 7 for postponement of consideration of I.A. No. 6 till the first defendant filed the written statement. The learned trial Judge allowed I.A. No. 7 by his order dated 2...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial