Karnataka Court June 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.
Kallappa Rama Londa Vs. Shivappa Nagappa Aparaj and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant238; ILR1994KAR3666; 1995(1)KarLJ351
1. Regular Second Appeal No. 659 of 1983 is filed by the appellant who was the plaintiff in the trial Court against the judgment and decree dt. 26-7-1983 passed by the Civil Judge-cum-J.M.F.C. Athani, in R.A. No. 100 of 1980 confirming the judgment and decree dt. 25-9-1978 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, in O. S. No. 261 of 1977.Regular Second Appeal No. 705 of 1983 is filed by the appellant who was the defendant in the trial Court against the judgment and decree dt. 26-7-1983 passed by the Civil Judge-cum-J. M. F. C. Athani, in R.A. No. 101 of 1980 confirming the judgment and decree dt. 25-9-1978 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, in O.S. No. 260 of 1977.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents fully and perused the records of the CASE.3. One Shivappa had filed a suit in O.S. No. 260 of 1977 against this appellant for a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from obstructing him with his peaceful p...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. Tribunal and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant103; ILR1994KAR1697
ORDERHakeem, J.1. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant herein, had challenged the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, affirming the order made by the Regional Transport Authority, granting renewal of the Stage Carriage Permit in respect of certain route from Tumkur to Bangalore and back. The consistent stand of the appellant has been that a portion of the route measuring about 8 K.Ms. from Nelamangala to Begur Cross overlaps the notified route under theBangalore Scheme and, as such, the renewal is illegal. The Authorities below as well as the learned single Judge rejected the appellant's contention on the ground that since the contesting respondent has been operating the route for the past 29 years under the original permit and renewal thereof from time to lime, and no attempt having been made by the appellant to question such renewal is a conduct which would disentitle it to object to the renewal at thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›