Karnataka Court February 1992 Judgments
K. Shivalingaiah Vs. B.V. Chandrashekara Gowda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant29; 1992(2)KarLJ536
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29-11-1986 passed by the learned XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S. No. 2379/1983. Respondents-1 to 3 are defendants 1 to 3 in the aforesaid suit. In this judgment the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and respondents 1 to 3 as defendants 1 to 3.1.1. The aforesaid suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,234/- from defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of the pronote dated 10-9-1980 executed by defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of defendant-3 and also on the basis of Ex.P.3 executed by defendant-3 in favour of the plaintiff for a valid consideration, assigning the debt due under the pronote dated 10-9-1980 F-x.P.3.1.2. The case of the plaintiff was that defendants-1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 10-9-1980 from defendant-3 executing a pronote for the said sum and further agreeing to pay interest at 1.75 per cent per mont...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Bagi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1123
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. The Full Bench has this question before it : 'Whether a person agreeing to the composition of the offence under section 31 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is not entitled to challenge the said proceedings held under section 31 under any circumstances, by invoking the appellate provisions of section 20 of the Act ?' 2. Section 31 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act reads thus : '31. Composition of offences. - The prescribed authority may accept from any person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence punishable under this Act, by way of composition of such offence - (a) where the offence committed is under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 29 or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 29, in addition to the tax or amount not paid or evaded to be paid, a sum of money not exceeding one thousand rupees or double the amount of the tax or amount so remaining unpaid or evaded to be paid whichever is greater, and (b) in other...
Tag this Judgment!Special Deputy Commissioner Vs. Akhil Veerashaiva Mandali
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-28-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1131; 1992(4)KarLJ624
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 8 days in preferring the Appeal. By an order made by this Court on 22.1.1992 notice was directed to be issued. Accordingly notice has been served on the learned Counsel who had appeared for the respondent (Writ petitioner) in the Writ Petition.2. Learned Counsel for the respondent, though served with the notice in the Writ Appeal, says that the notice should be issued to the respondent. This submission is untenable in view of Rule 32 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, regulating the Writ Appeals.Rule 32 of the Rules reads:'When notice is directed to be issued on any writ appeal, such notice may be served on the Advocate if any, who appeared for the respondent in the original proceedings in the High Court. In all other cases notice shall be issued to the respondent.'According to the above Rule, when a notice is directed to be issued in the Writ App...
Tag this Judgment!K. Shivalingaiah Vs. B.V. Chandrasekhara Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-27-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1996
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. This Appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29-11-1986 passed by the learned XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O.S.No.2379/1983. Respondents-1 to 3 are defendants 1 to 3 in the aforesaid suit. In this judgment the appellant will be referred to as the plaintiff and respondents-1 to 3 as defendants-1 to 3.1.1. The aforesaid suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 32,234/-from defendants-1 & 2 on the basis of the pronote dated 10-9-1980 executed by defendants-1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of defendant-3 and also on the basis of Ex.P.3 executed by defendant-3 in favour of the plaintiff for a valid consideration, assigning the debt due under the pronote dated 10-9-1980 Ex.P.3.1.2. The case of the plaintiff was that defendants-1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on 10-9-1980 from defendant-3 executing a pronote for the said sum and further agreeing to pay interest at 1.75 per cent per month; tha...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjundaswamy Vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-26-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR979
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The Writ Petition itself is referred to the Full Bench for hearing and final disposal.2. The Writ petitioner is a member of the third respondent, which is a Co-operative Bank, registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The Writ petitioner had filed a nomination paper for being elected upon the Committee of Management of the third respondent. At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers an objection was raised, that the Writ petitioner was a partner of a partnership firm called Lakshmi Financers and that, therefore, his nomination ought to be rejected. The petitioner brought various documents to the knowledge of the Returning Officer to rebut the objection. However, the objection was upheld. The Writ Petition was filed to quash the order of the Returning Officer on the ground that he had erred in considering the documents produced by the Writ petitioner.3. The learned single Judge, when the Writ Petition came up before him for Prelimi...
Tag this Judgment!i. Armugam Vs. Channagiri N. Govindaraj Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Kant347; ILR1992KAR1660; 1992(2)KarLJ659
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. At the stage of admission respondent has been served and he is represented through a counsel. The records of the case are also received. As the appeal lies in a very narrow compass, it is admitted. Production of paper books is dispensed with and the appeal is heard for final disposal.2. In the light of the contentions urged by both sides, the following points arise for consideration :1. Whether the Trial Court is justified on facts and in law in passing a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,23,535/- on the basis of three cheques dated 12-11-1987, 12-11-1987 and on 27-7-1987 for Rs. 30,000/- each?2. Whether the Trial Court is justified in law and on facts in awarding interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the principal sum as claimed by the plaintiff from the date of issuance of the cheques up to the date of suit and also from the date of suit till realisation on a sum of Rs. 90,000/- at the same rate ?3. In this judgment, respondent will be referred to as the plaint iff and t...
Tag this Judgment!City Toilet House Vs. Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1982; 1992(2)KarLJ259
ORDERShivaprakash, J. 1. The Petitions are taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.2. In these Petitions, the petitioners challenge the legality of the demand notices dated 25-1-1991 marked as Annexure-'F' series, demanding payment of arrears of property tax in respect of the premises in their occupation. The notices in question are issued by the second respondent purporting to be under the provisions of Sections 112 and 470 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Under the impugned notices, the arrears of tax demanded is for the period between the year 1987 and March 1991.3. Sri. D.L.N. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notices are issued without the authority of law. The relevant part of Section 112 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act which provides for payment of property tax reads thus:-'112. Property tax from whom and when payable:- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section...
Tag this Judgment!Bharati Bhau Vs. Bhau
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: II(1992)DMC23; ILR1992KAR1319
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Appeal by the respondent in the original proceeding is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 12th December 1985 passed by the learned First Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum in M.C. No. 23/1982.2. The respondent/petitioner filed that application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between him and the appellant on the grounds that the marriage was performed according to Hindu customs on 21.5.1979 and thereafter the appellant lived with him for a couple of months and picked up quarrels with him and left his company on 12.5.1980 and thereafter she did not return inspite of the fact that the petitioner requested her to return to his residence. He has also further alleged that even though appellant lived with him for a period of two months she did not allow him to co-habit and did not allow consummation of the marriage to take place.3. The respondent appeared and fi...
Tag this Judgment!Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkhane Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-25-1992
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2069
ORDERK. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The question referred to us for our opinion reads thus:'Whether the fact that the State Government has framed rules regulating the conditions of service of officers and employees of co-operative societies established and functioning under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, under Section 129(2)(o) of that Act, in which there is a rule prescribing the age of superannuation of officers and employees of a Co-operative Society and the rules have been published in the Official gazette, is sufficient to make the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act inapplicable to the petitioner establishment by the force of Section 13-B of the said Act, even in the absence of publication of such rules by a specific notification - issued by the Government under Section 13-B of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act2. The question arises because of an earlier Bench of this Court in K.V.R. SHETTY v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA AND ORS., 19...
Tag this Judgment!C. Puttaswamy, Etc. Vs. Smt. Prema, Etc.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-1992
Reported in: AIR1992Kant356
ORDERS. P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The question that is referred to the Full Bench for consideration reads thus :'Whether the provision under S. 47(3) of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 requiring the Deputy Commissioner to give to members of a Mandal Panchayat notice of a meeting for consideration of a motion of no-confidence against the Pradhan or Upapradhan 'of not less than 15 clear days of such meeting' is mandatory or directory?'2. Briefly, the facts that give rise to the reference are these : The writ petitioner (the first respondent to the appeal) is the elected Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat which is the third respondent to the appeal. On 9th August 1991 a majority of the members of the Mandal Panchayat forwarded to (he Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagaram Sub-Division (the second respondent to the appeal) a notice requiring him to call a meeting to consider a No-confidence motion against the first respondent. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »