Karnataka Court January 1995 Judgments
Venkataiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR915; 1995(3)KarLJ402
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. I.A.No. III is an application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for substitution of the names of the heirs of the deceased-petitioner Venkataiah who is alleged to have died on 17.7.1984 as mentioned in the application setting aside the abatement. Though in paragraph 2 of the application for substitution it has wrongly been mentioned as 17.7.1985. On enquiry being made from the applicant's Counsel the learned Counsel for the applicant fairly stated that the death has taken place on 17.7.1984 and not on 17.7.1985. '17.7.1985' mentioned at paragraph 2 of I.A.No. III is a typing error.2. The application for substitution I.A.No. III as well as other applications viz., I.A.Nos. I and II have been moved in this Court on 17.1.1995 i.e. almost 9 years 6 months after the date of death of the original petitioner. Under the law, the time prescribed for moving the application for substitution of the names of the heirs is 90 days and if no applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhat Vs. Srimathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC280; ILR1995KAR1494; 1995(2)KarLJ271
ORDERMohan Kumar, J.1. In this Appeal, the husband challenges the correctness of the judgment of the Court below in dismissing his application for divorce sought invoking Section 13(i)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, The facts leading to the Appeal in brief are as follows:2. The marriage between the spouses took place on 14.3.1980. The husband alleges that he did not know the wife prior to the marriage, he being a resident in a far off place and since the alliance was mooted by a common relative. He saw the bride for the first time and for a brief period of few days prior to the marriage at her residence. The husband alleges that he consented to the marriage believing that the wife was a normal person. The marriage was thereafter held, at Uppinangady i.e., at the groom's place, instead of as usual at bride's place at the suggestion of the bride's parents. After the marriage they lived together in his house for about 2 or 3 days and during these days her behaviour was unusually calm. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Shivanna Vs. Narayana Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1000
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J1. By these Petitions, the petitioner has prayed for calling for the record of proceedings in R.A. (LKP) 32/92-93 and R.A. (LKP) 66/93-94, before the Sub-Division Officer, Ramanagaram Sub-Division, Ramanagaram in Bangalore Rural District The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order, direction or command against respondents and has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 29.7.1994 in Nos. R.A.(LKP)32/92-93 and R.A.(LKP) 66/93-94 on the file of the Sub-Division Officer, Ramanagaram, copies of which are Annexures -H and J to these Petitions, respectively, in respect of Sy.No. 166/2/(New) Sy.Nos. 555, 556, and 557 of Harisandra Village in Ramanagaram Taluk.2. The facts of the case in brief are, that according to the petitioner's case as alleged in the Writ Petition, the petitioner's father had four sons as mentioned in paragraph-2 of the Writ Petition and that one of the brothers of the petitioner namely ...
Tag this Judgment!Mariyamma Vs. Aramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC545; ILR1995KAR2069; 1995(3)KarLJ246
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard appellant's learned Advocate. Respondents are represented, but I have not called upon them.2. Appellant's learned Advocate has seriously assailed the finding of the trial. Court whereby the respondent has been held to be the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Mastanappa. It is the case of the present appellant that, she has produced adequate material before the trial Court for the purpose of establishing that deceased Mastanappa and she were residing together for a long period of time and that he has treated her as his wife. She has also produced a photograph of the two of them which according to her is the wedding photograph. In sum and substance, what is vehemently contended by the appellant's learned Advocate is that, the trial Court ignored the evidence produced by the present appellant in support of her contention that there was a long period of cohabitation between them and that along with other supportive material, this was sufficient to establish her...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Subbaiah Vs. Lokayuktha for Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR620; 1995(3)KarLJ20
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner along with one Rangaswamy, son of Range, Gowda, of Koniganahalli Village, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District, filed a complaint before the Lokayukta - Respondent No. 1 complaining that respondents 2 to 5 had committed certain acts or omitted to discharge their duties being public servants. The 1st-respondent passed an order on 17.6.1986 dismissing the complaint filed by them. Thereafter, they filed an application seeking revival of the complaint which was also dismissed by the 1st respondent. While doing so, the 1st respondent made certain comments which, the petitioner submits, are not called for. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order made by the 1st respondent on 17.6.1986 and the order made on the subsequent application on 8.7.1986, while challenging the legality thereof seeks for quashing of the said two orders and for a Mandamus to consider the material placed before him and to conduct an investigation into the allegations levelled again...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Vs. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR742; 1995(2)KarLJ112; (1996)ILLJ592Kant
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this Petition, the petitioner calls in question the validity of an Award made by the Labour Court, on a Reference made to it by the Government of Karnataka under Section 10(1)(c) of I.D. Act. By the said Award the Reference has been rejected by the Labour Court and the resignation submitted by the petitioner held to have been validly accepted, by the respondent-Management.A few facts necessary for disposal of the Petition may be stated immediately :The petitioner was working as an 'A' Grade Mechanic with the first respondent, when on 18.3.1982 he submitted a letter of resignation; resigning from the position held by him, for the reason that he was shifting to his native place along with his mother, to look after his property situated there. Two days later on 20.3.1982 he appears to have changed his mind and sought to withdraw his resignation. In the meantime the Competent Authority had on 19th March 1982 accepted the resignation after waiving the notice p...
Tag this Judgment!Pamma Devadthi Vs. Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR920; 1995(2)KarLJ374
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This is an Application under Section 151 of CPC., read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 1(3) of Chapter X of Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959, with the prayer for review and for recall of my Order dated 10.1.1995, whereby I have dismissed the petitioner's Writ Petition (W.P.No. 526/95). In my order dated 10.1.1995 I have clearly mentioned that, after passing of exparte interim order dated 24.9.1994 by the Tribunal granting interim injunction in favour of the respondent, the petitioner had made an application for vacation or revocation or modification of exparte order dated 24.9.1994. According to the petitioner's case, as has been pointed out at the time of hearing, the Tribunal had not passed any order on the application made by the petitioner for modification or revocation of the interim exparte injunction order, though request had been made to the Tribunal. So this Court had taken the view that, when the application was pendi...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Punnappa Khilare Vs. Sripad Gangadhar Sabannavar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1173; 1995(2)KarLJ237
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This is defendant's Second Appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated November 9, 1984, delivered by Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum in Regular Civil Appeal No. 13/84, dismissing the first appeal of the defendant-appellant and confirming the judgment and decree dated 14th December, 1983 given in Original Suit No. 206/76, by the First Additional Munsiff, Belgaum, whereby the Trial Court decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for redemption of mortgage and possession of the mortgaged property and for future mesne profits.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the above mentioned Regular Suit for redemption of mortgage with the allegations to the effect as contained in the plaint that plaintiff-respondent is and has been the adopted son of one Smt. Tulsabai wife of Gangadhar Sabannavar. The plaintiff's case is that Smt. Tulsabai referred to above died on August 7, 1971, leaving behind her, the plaintiff-the only son and heir entitled to succeed her. The plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1753
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner is a nationalised bank who appears to have extended certain facility to a company by name M/s. Gladstone Lyall & Co. Ltd. Certain agreements are said to have been executed between the petitioner and the said company, whereunder certain goods like movables, plant and machinery have been hypothecated in favour of the petitioner-bank. The hypothecated plant and machinery were liable to be sold by the petitioner-bank in the event of a default in payment by the borrowing company. The borrower appears to have committed such a default, with the result that in exercise of the powers available to it under the hypothecation agreement in question, the petitioner-bank sold by auction the goods hypothecated with it. While these goods were yet to be moved outside the State of Karnataka by the purchaser, the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Check-Post, Mangalore and the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore Division, Mangalore, issued notices a...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayaka Griha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR518; 1995(6)KarLJ573
Eswara Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner assails the order of the 1st respondent Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Annexure-H, holding that the 2nd respondent Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute relating to the title and possession of certain lands, which arise between the petitioner Society and the 3rd respondent Society.2. The facts in brief are, certain lands were the subject matter of acquisition, which commenced on 21.1.85. After following the procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, an award was passed and possession of the lands in Sy.Nos. 95 and 98 of Nagarbhavi Village, was taken by the Government and the lands were handed over to the petitioner Society on 13.10.92 as seen from Annexure-D. It appears that the 3rd respondent claimed title to the lands in question, by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 29.8.91. Complaining that the 3rd respondent is interfering with the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner approached the 2nd...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »