Karnataka Court May 1992 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.
Padmashree S.N. Swamy Vs. Smt. Gowramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-28-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant208; 1992(3)KarLJ244
Acts/Rules/Orders:Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 58;Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100;India Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 92Cases Referred:Smt. Indirakaur v. Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor, AIR 1988 SC 1074;Chunchun Jha v. Ebadat Ali, AIR 1954 SC 345;Smt. Indira Kaur v. Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor, AIR 1988 SC 1074;Thankra Singh v. Sheo Nath Singh, AIR 1940 Allahabad 227;thakur Dass v. Tek Chand, AIR 1944 Lah 175JUDGEMENT1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 13-7-1981 in R.A. No. 23 of 1979 passed by the learned District Judge, Mysore, whereby the learned District Judge reversed the judgment and decree dated 17-3-1979 made in O.S. No. 186 of 1973 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mysore.2. Facts in brief are :--The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the trial court.The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption and directing delivery of possession of the suit schedule property on the plaintiff paying a sum of Rs. 16,000/- ...
M/S. R.K. Associates Vs. V. Channapa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant247; 1992(2)KarLJ437
ORDER1. The Revision Petition No. 4528 of 1991 is directed against the order, dated 10-10-1991 made on I. A. No. I in A. S. No. 1 of 199! by the learned Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Ramanagaram, in so far as it imposes a condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 31,14,685/- in court within seven days from the date of the order failing which temporary injunction granted should automatically cease. The Revision petition No. 340 of 1992 is filed by the the defendants against the same order passed on I. A. No. I in A. S. No. 1 of 1991, dated 10-10-1991 by the learned Civil Judge, Ramanagaram. 2. Since both the revision petitions arising out of common order, they are disposed of by common order. 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 4528 of 1991 is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the lower court and vice-versa in C. R. P. No. 340 of 1992. The material facts as stated in the lower court are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed an arbitr...
R.K. Associates Vs. Channappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-26-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2340
ORDER.The jurisdiction of the Court is founded on the equity of relieving a man from the necessity of bringing an action after action. The party approaches the Court for grant of injunction seeking its aid to prevent the future injury. Thus, while the Court granting temporary injunction to prevent the future injury to the party, it cannot impose unreasonable condition to put him to peril... The task of this Court is to see whether the condition imposed by the lower Court, in exercise of judicial discretion, could have decided to impose.On Facts:The condition imposed by the lower Court directing the plaintiff to deposit the entire balance sale price of Rs. 31,14,685/- in Court within seven days from the date of the order, otherwise, the temporary injunction granted will automatically cease, tantamounts to render the order of temporary injunction nugatory.... The lower Court having held that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants will not be put to an...
Dr. Shashibhushan Vs. Bata India Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-08-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2036; 1992(2)KarLJ490
ORDERHakeem, J. 1. This Revision by the landlord is directed against the trial Court's order rejecting his claim for eviction of the tenant on the grounds under Sections 21 (1)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The premises is a shop in which the tenant is having its godown. The tenancy is not disputed. The landlord's case, as pleaded earlier, was that the premises is required reasonably and bonafide for setting up his own business as he has no other avocation. Later, he sought for amendment of the petition by incorporating para6(a) to the petition, that, haying completed his M.B.B.S. course he intends to set up and carry on medical practice for which purpose the premises is reasonably and bona fide required by him.3. The landlord's further case is that the tenant has, built a suitable alternate accommodation bearing No. 37, old No. 28, Subedar Chatram Road, facing KempegowdaCircle, Bangalore-9. That, the new premises in his possession has three times th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›