Karnataka Court April 1993 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.
K. Sardar Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR1881; 1993(2)KarLJ498
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J.1. The petitioner in this Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has sought to set aside the order dated 7.12.1991 made by the Principal Civil Judge, Koiar, in Execution No. 54 of 1989 directing issuance of fresh proclamation to sell in public auction the lorry in question, to confirm the sale held on 29.10.1991 as per the direction of the Court and to grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.2. Canara Bank, respondent-1 herein, obtained a decree in O.S.No. 118 of 1986 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,70,000. Respondents 2 to 7 were the judgment debtors. The decree came to be executed in Execution Case No. 54 of 1989. During the course of the execution proceedings, the lorry bearing registration No. MYK 9631 belonging to the judgment debtors, was sought to be sold in public auction to realise the decretal amount. Accordingly, by an order dated 22.12.1990 the Court directed sale of the lorry in...
M/S. Praveen Metal Agencies, Bangalore and Others Vs. M. Balasubramany ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Kant334; ILR1993KAR1538; 1993(2)KarLJ123
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. Theappeal is by the plaintiffs. According to the plaint the plaintiffs are dealing in metal scraps among other goods and the two plaintiffs are having common partners. The transactions in question are common as against the defendants-1 and 2 and consequently the suit is filed invoking Order l, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.2. The first defendant started a metal rolling mill at Bangalore. The second defendant is a trader in metal scraps. The plaintiffs and second defendant had several business transactions. Financial accommodation was also being provided between them in the matter of providing stock and arranging finances. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant issued two cheques dated 16-4-1981, one for Rs.20,000/- and another for Rs.52,041/- in favour of the second defendant. These cheques were endorsed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for valuable consideration, the consideration being the adjustment of the amounts due fro...
Praveen Metal Agencies and Another Vs. M. Balasubramanyam and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1993
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas74(Kar)
Shivashanker Bhat, J.1. The appeal is by the plaintiffs. According to the plaint, the plaintiffs are dealing in metal scrap among other goods and the two plaintiffs are having common partners. The transactions in question are common as against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and, consequently, the suit is filed invoking Order 1, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The first defendant started a metal rolling mill at Bangalore. The second defendant is a trader in metal scrap. The plaintiffs and the second defendant had several business transactions. Financial accommodation was also being provided between them in the matter of providing stocks and arranging finances. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant issued two cheques dated April 16, 1981, one for Rs. 20,000 and another for Rs. 52,041 in favour of the second defendant. These cheques were endorsed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiffs for valuable consideration, the consideration being the adjustment of the amou...
Rajivi Vs. Srinivasa Hegde
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2084; 1993(2)KarLJ451
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 11.3.1988 passed in RRP No.94 of 1986 on the file of the District Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, dismissing the revision and confirming the order dated 10.2.1986 passed by the Principal Munsiff and Rent Controller, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, in H.R.C.No. 18 of 1979 partly allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Section 21 (1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act').2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.3. The facts leading to this Revision Petition arise as follows:-It is not disputed that the respondent is the landlord of the petition premises. He filed the petition in the Court of the Munsiff and Rent Controller, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, against Laxmi, wife of Annappa Bhandary and the petitioner herein Rajivi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›