Karnataka Court January 1994 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.
Ramachandra Vs. Sundaram Setty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1813; 1996(5)KarLJ583
ORDERVishwanath, J.1. Heard both the Counsel. Admitted. Heard on merits. .2. In this Revision Petition, the defendants-Revision petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Mysore on I.A.No. 3 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. in O.S.No. 12 of. 1994; I.A.No. 3 was filed by the defendants-Revision petitioners praying that the Commissioner should be appointed to go and take measurements and find out if there is any encroachment. The learned Munsiff rejected I.A. No. 3.3. It is clear from the written statement that the defendants have admitted possession of the plaintiff and the measurements of the property. So there was nothing for the Commissioner to go and find out. If there was any encroachment, other remedies are open to the defendants. The encroachment, if any, cannot be gone into in a suit for permanent injunction in which possession and the measurements of the property are admitted. Secondly and more importantly, it is seen from the affidavit in support of I.A.N...
H.B. Vittala Kamath Vs. Krishna Motor Service, Shimoga and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant181; ILR1994KAR473; 1994(1)KarLJ529
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner in A.C. No. 2 of 1984, on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Shimoga, against his order dated 20th November, 1985 allowing his application in part and referring only one of the four points raised by him for arbitration and declining to refer the other three points.2. The parties will be referred to by the rank they held in the lower-Court.It is undisputed that the petitioner and respondents entered into a partnership to carry on business with effect from 1-7-1973 and the terms and conditions of the partnership agreement were reduced into writing as per Ex. R.3 dated 6-10-1973. The partnership was one at will. It is also undisputed that the respondents issued a notice dated 10-5-1984 dissolving the firm with effect from 10-5-1994. Clause 17 of the terms and conditions of the partnership agreement Ex. R.3 contemplates reference to arbitration of any dispute that may arise between the parties and it reads as hereunder :'17. If ...
Tammanna and Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant290; ILR1994KAR308; 1994(1)KarLJ325
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the Notification dated 28-11-1992 (marked as Annexure 'C' in W.P. 37476 of 1992 and as Annexure 'B' in W.Ps. 2105 and 2106 of 1993) passed by the 1st respondent. 2. The three petitioners were nominated as members Committee of the Primary Cooperation Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Mudhol (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd respondent-Bank) by the 1st respondent in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the Karanataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in supersession of the earlier nominations. The Government Notification dated 19-9-1992 is at Annexure 'A'. By means of the notification dated 28-11-1992 the 1st respondent has revoked the nomination made under Annexure 'A' and has nominated respondents 4 to 6 members of the Committee of the 2nd respondent-Bank. 3. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification dated...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›