Karnataka Court September 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.
Shivananjappa Vs. Marulasiddappa Sons
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR955
B.N. Krishnan, J. 1. The appellant was the defendant in Original Suit No. 295 of 1977 on the file of the Munsiff, Shimoga. That was a suit filed by the plaintiff, a registered partnership firm against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,613-64 due on the basis of a pronote executed by him in favour of the plaintiff-firm. The suit was instituted in the name of the firm by one of its partners-K.M. Renuka. The defendant took up a number of contentions to resist the claim of the plaintiff. He disputed that the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. He also denied that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from the plaintiff-firm or executed the suit pronote. The defendant has also taken up another contention that the plaintiff is liable to give deduction in the suit claim in respect of the value of 30 bags of are canuts realized by it. He has further pleaded that he had subscribed his signature on a blank pronote in connection with the arecanut matter. He has further pleaded that ...
Management of Guest Keen Williams Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Ii Addl. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3731; 1992(1)KarLJ255
S. Mohan, G.J.1. Since Writ Appeal No. 1669/1991 arises out of an interlocutory order dated June 18, 1991 made in Writ Petition No. 13266/1991 directing the appellant to pay to the second respondent a sum of Rs. 25,000/- subject to reinstating the second respondent and paying him the current wages, we asked the learned counsel on both sides whether we could have the writ petition itself disposed of on merits. They agreed to this course. That is how the writ petition also has come up before us. Since the judgment in the writ petition will govern the writ appeal as well, we propose to deal with the writ petition first. 2. The second respondent-workman was appointed by the appellant-petitioner in February 1974 on a temporary basis as a Helper. He was given intermittent work till September 1974. Thereafter his services were dispensed with. Again he was employed by the appellant from February 25, 1978 and he continued in the said employment till August 20, 1978. From August 21, 1978 he was ...
M. Krishnappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ2648
ORDER1. This is an application filed u/S. 438, Cr.P.C. The offence alleged against the petitioners are u/S. 143, 147, 148, 149 and 302, IPC.Similar application was filed before the Sessions Court, Kolar which was opposed by the State. Accordingly the Sessions Judge passed an order dated 14-8-91 rejecting the same.2. Subsequent to filing this petition, the petitioner 9 has been arrested by the police in connection with the above crime. Hence, the application filed by him is rejected as infructuous.3. The case of the prosecution is that there was some ill-will between A-1 and the deceased Iragappa in respect of boundary dispute of the land. One C. V. Ramesh Gowda, nephew of the deceased (brother's son) filed a complaint before Malur Police on 6-5-91 at 9 a.m. The allegations made are that there was ill-will between A-1 and the deceased. A-1 had encroached Gomal land which was objected by the deceased on the ground that the said Gomal reserved for burial ground. There were cases and count...
Bangalore Timber Corporation Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR4013
ORDERKedambady Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. The Petitioners have filed these two Writ Petitions for an order declaring Section 21(1)(l) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ACT') as ultravires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it vividly discriminates the class of tenants, who come under Clause (I) with those tenants, who come under Clause (j). 2. The facts in this case are few and simple. The first petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of Timber and timber products, and the Second Petitioner is its Partner. The suit schedule property bearing site No. 16 is an open plot comes within the residential zone in C.D.P. which was taken on lease by the petitioners on a monthly rental of Rs. 190/- for a commercial purpose. It is alleged that the petitioners had put up structure in the site. 3. The Second Respondent, who is the landlord of the premises filed an eviction petition on 31-8-1988 in HRC No. 2124 of 1988 for eviction of the f...
Kanala Narasamma Vs. Nanjappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: ILR1992KAR951; 1991(4)KarLJ282
ORDERR. Ramakrishna, J 1. This Revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 4-12-1989 passed on I.A.No. Nil in Original Suit No. 1344/1981 on the file of the learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore, allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a qualified engineer as Court commissioner for valuation of the properties shown in the plaint schedule.2. The facts undisputed are,That the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to prevent him to make use of a disputed passage in the suit schedule property. Later, the plaintiff has amended the plaint where she has sought for declaration, that the disputed passage form part of the suit property and it should be declared so. After allowing the said application, the plaint was amended and the Court below while allowing the application gave an opportunity for the plaintiff to place materials in respect of additional court fee p...
Dharmappa Sabanna Madar Vs. Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3723; 1991(3)KarLJ163
Mohan, C.J.1. The appellants being aggrieved by the order dated 27-1-1988 passed by the Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad, in and by which, they were disqualified from the membership of the Mandal Panchayat, Murnal, Bagalkot Taluk, Bijapur District, preferred Writ Petitions Nos. 2419 and 2420/1988 and not being successful before the learned Single Judge, they have come up before us.2. The facts leadings to these Appeals are as under:The appellants as Members of Mandal Panchayat, Murnal, Bagalkot Taluk, Bijapur District, were elected on Janatha Party Ticket. On 30-12-1987, an ordinary Meeting of the Mandal Panchayat was convened. In that Meeting the appellants participated and opposed the confirmation of the Resolution of the previous Meeting of the Panchayat, which was listed as Item 10. When the Resolution was put to vote, they opposed the Resolution, whereas 7 Members of the same party voted in favour of the Resolution. The appellants voted against the Resolution along with one Congres...
M/S. Sharja Nice Bakery Vs. the Superintendent and Chairman, Tender Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Kant391; 1991(3)KarLJ45
ORDER1. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents 1 and 2 are defendants 1 and 2 respectively in O.S. 77/89 on the file of the I Addl. Munsiff, Hubli (for short 'the Munsiff' of 'the trial Court'), Petitioner had filed that suit against respondents 1 and 2 only for a declaration that Notification No. LPV (2) Tender 62/88-89 dated 2-1-1989 issued by the first defendant is illegal and for the consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to call for the tenders in respect of bread item. Sometimeafter the suit was filed, third respondent herein made an application in the trial Court under Order 1, Rule 10(2) CPC praying that he may be impleaded as third respondent to the suit as he was vitally interested in the subject matter of the suit inasmuch as he has been supplying diet articles and HNS articles to the Karnataka Medical College Hospital, Hubli and Mental Hospital, Dharwad for more than 25 to 30 years without any complaint regarding the quality and quan...
Kashinath Vs. Deputy Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: ILR1991KAR3817; 1992(1)KarLJ22
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. An area of 20 acres of land in Sy. No. 29 totally measuring 30 acres 24 guntas, situate at village Yernalli (D), Janavada Hobli, Bidar Taluk, was proposed for acquisition for rehabilitation of villagers of Bampally village. The notification-Annexure-A dated 2-2-1991 issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 21-2-1991, The petitioner in this Writ Petition has questioned the said notification-Annexure-A and has prayed for quashing it contending that there was a land dispute between himself and one Sidramappa Anna of the same village; they both belong to two different political groups; the said Sidramappa Anna had challenged to see that the only land of the petitioner would be deprived by acquisition, purporting to exercise powers under Section 17 of the Act respondent No. 1 has issued the impugned combined notification; in response to the notice-Annexure-...
M.K. Chinthamani Vs. M.K. Jayadeva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-17-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)KarLJ42
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 19-6-1987 passed by the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, rejecting I.A.No. III filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to stay further proceedings in Execution No. 2146 of 1986 pending decision in O.S.No. 2251 of 1987 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore.2. The Execution Court has rejected the application on the ground that the Order 21 Rule 29 of the C.P.C. is not attracted; that as far as Section 151 of the C.P.C. is concerned, it has not stated anything though it has referred to the contention of the petitioner raised under Section 151 C.P.C.3. Sri Rama Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has put forth two contentions; 1) That the provisions of Order 21 Rule 29 of the C.P.C. are attracted as the requirements of those provisions are satisfied, that in the event it is held that the provisions of Ord...
Shankar Krishnasa Habib and Another Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ205; ILR1992KAR1191; 1991(4)KarLJ694
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offences alleged are punishable under Ss. 17, 18, 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 34 of Karnataka excise Act. Similar petition was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Dharwad in Crime No. 75/91. The said petition was opposed by the State. Learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 12-8-91 rejected the said petition. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on an information received by the P.S.I. Ganthikeri Police Station of Hubli at about 10 p.m. on 31-7-1991 to the effect accused - petitioners herein, who are residents of Aralikatti Oni of Hubli coming within the limits of Ganthikeri Police Station are engaged in the Narcotic trade and have huge stock of Ganja in their residence, he along with panchas raided the house of the petitioners. On a thorough search of the premises, detected 2 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »