Karnataka Court January 1995 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.
Rangappa Vs. Krishnamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR968; 1995(2)KarLJ591
Saldanha, J1. This First Appeal is directed against a money decree, The plaintiff had contended that a sum of Rs. 18,400/- had been borrowed by the defendant on 3.12.1981. The basic document on which he relies is a demand promissory note signed by the defendant agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 2% per month. The interest is abnormally high but the difficulty in the way of the Court was that the defendant had agreed to this rate of interest at the time when the transaction took place. The defendant has denied that this was a loan transaction. According to him, the amount was in deposit with him and it related to the educational expenses of the two grand children to whom the defendant was liable to pay money from time to time if necessary. The defence has been negatived by the trial Court and the suit has been decreed.2. The principal challenge is with regard to the credibility of the plaintiff who admittedly at the relevant time when he gave evidence was aged 84 years. ...
State of Karnataka Vs. Neelakantha Sakreppa Sankannavar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)223; 1995CriLJ1815; ILR1995KAR381; 1995(3)KarLJ1
Mirdhe, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 10-12-91 passed by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgam, in S.C. No. 25/91 acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC. 2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader Shri M. Marigowda and the learned counsel for the respondent accused fully and perused the records of the case. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows : That the deceased Sawakka was married to the respondent accused about more than a year prior to her death. At the time of her marriage with the accused, Savakka had not attained puberty. After six months of her marriage, she was sent to her husband's house. The accused was sleeping with Savakka on the night between 4-10-1990 and 5-10-1990 and since Savakka did not allow the accused to have sexual intercourse with her, he throttled her and committed her murder and thereafter, he consumed poison and attempted to commit suicide but he was saved due to the ...
G. Subramanya Udupa Vs. D. Ramappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR540; 1995(3)KarLJ152
Bharuka, J.1. The Revision Application filed at the instance of the tenant is one under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the revisional order of the District Judge, whereby it was held that the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground of personal necessity of the landlord, as also on the ground that the petitioner has acquired a suitable alternative premises of his own. The said grounds are covered by Clauses (h) & (p) of the Proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short the Act).2. Some of the foundational facts as found by the Courts below on the basis of pleadings and the evidence recorded, may be noticed at the threshold. The respondent is the landlord of the suit premises and the petitioner is the tenant. The suit premises comprises of one room, one big hall, one kitchen and one store room and petitioner runs a hotel therein. Contiguous to this premises, there is another premises comprised o...
K.N. Suryanarayana Setty Vs. K. Sattarkhan and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant252; ILR1995KAR521; 1995(2)KarLJ551
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 10 of the Karnatka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act') for short) is presented by the landlord having failed before the trial Court. The landlord has sought eviction of the respondents under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act in respect of the shop premises bearing No. 6 situated in Jumma Masjid Road, Bangalore City who have been in occupation of the said premises since the year 1971, and the petitioner has been seeking their eviction since the year 1984.2. In the petition it is stated that the shop in question is situated in Jumma Masjid road and that the petitioner is residing in the residential portion of the building in the ground floor and first floor bearing No. 5. It appears that there are altogether three shops in row out of which the middle one is already in the occupation of the petitioner which he got vacated by filing an eviction petition and the same is being used by him for his silk and cotton yarn business.3. It is the case of the petitio...
Sree Ranga Enterprises Vs. Rainbow Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR533; 1995(6)KarLJ577
Shivaprakash, J. 1. Though this matter is listed for admission, the same is taken up for final disposal by consent of parties.2. This Revision Petition is presented by the 'landlord' against the interim order dated 11.7.1994, passed on I.A.X in HRC No. 1413/92. The trial Court in its order has allowed the application filed by the tenant purporting to be under Section 151 of C.P.C. read with Rule 35, of the Karnataka Rent Control Rules staying all further proceedings in the aforesaid case till the disposal of F.R.5/92 on the file of the House Rent and Accommodation Controller, South Range, Bangalore on condition that the respondent - tenant shall 'continue to deposit the current rents at the agreed rate subject to the final orders that would be passed' in the case.3. It appears, the respondent-tenant has filed an application before the Accommodation Controller under Section 14 of the Act for fixation of fair rent of the premises in question.4. It is not in dispute that the agreed rent i...
Gangamma Vs. Veeranna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1812
ORDERVishwanath, J.1. Notice of admission has been served on the respondent. However he has remained absent and is unrepresented.The Revision Petition is admitted.2. The Revision petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Civil Judge on I.A.No. I in R.A.No. 94 of 1992 on 5.10.1993 granting stay of operation of the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Magadi, in O.S. No. 71 of 1984 on 17.9.1992. The said suit was for permanent injunction.3. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit which, as already stated, was for permanent injunction.4. The plaintiff who is the respondent in this Revision Petition has filed the appeal before the learned Civil Judge challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, Magadi, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. In the appeal the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 1 under Order XLI Rule 5 and the learned Civil Judge allowed it, His order is to the effect that operation of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Mun...
Smt. A.E. Dakshayanamma Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant341; ILR1995KAR264; 1995(3)KarLJ11
ORDER1. The question involved in this case is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner has any authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short, the Act) and the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (in short, the Rules) to annul the grant of any land made by Tahsildar in gross disregard of the relevant Rules.2. The relevant undisputed facts giving rise to the question involved may be stated in short:The respondent-Tahsildar by his order dated 15-7-1978 granted I acre 2 gunthas of land out of Survey No. 36 of Sanyasikodamogge village and issued Saguvali Chit on 25-7-1978. This land was under the unauthorised cultivation of one Rudrappa. He being a sufficient holder and not being authorised for regularisation in terms of Order No. 105 AGP 77 dated 1st September 1977 was evicted from the land immediately thereafter without following the statutory procedure. This order as noticed by the Deputy Commissioner in his order Annexure-A does not speak as to whether the l...
Shri Anandappa Vs. Sri M.C. Kittur and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant295; ILR1995KAR740; 1995(3)KarLJ149
ORDER1. The plaintiffs who are the respondents-1 to 22 filed a suit in O.S. No. 461/1975 in the Court of the IInd AdditionalMunsiff, Belgaum for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from digging the graves and tombs of the buried members of the Lingayat community. The said suit was filed in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8(1) of Code of Civil Procedure and notice as contemplated under the said order was issued and some of the persons interested in the subject matter of the suit got themselves impleaded as the plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs filed a memo on 23-5-1982 stating that the suit was technically defective and be dismissed for non-prosecution. It is common ground that all the Advocates to each party had signed the memo praying for dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution. The learned Munsiff allowed the memo filed by the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. The petitioner who was not a party to the suit filed a Miscellaneous Application ...
Mahadevappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR902; 1995(3)KarLJ162
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 23.12.93 passed by respondent No. 2, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad District, Dharwad in KLR:AP:4:93-94 Dharwad, a copy of that order has been annexed as Annexure 'C' to the Writ Petition. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 27.7.93 passed by respondent No. 3, that is the Tahsildar, Hubli Taluk, District Dharwad, in No. KLR.CR. 1/93-94 Hubli, a copy of which order has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the Writ Petition.2. This Writ Petition along with the application for vacation of the interim order had been listed before me for orders. I have perused the order sheet which persistently indicate, that this Petition was listed before the Hon'ble CS J on 13.1.94. The learned Single Judge passed the following order-'Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, once a soldier, he has ...
Hanumakka Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-03-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1168; 1995(2)KarLJ117
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has prayed for grant and issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction, directing the respondent No. 2 Assistant Commissioner to expeditiously dispose of the petitioner's application dated 7.12.1994 made under the provisions of the Karnataka SC and ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 for redemption of land in question in favour of the petitioner, as the petitioner claims herself to be the legal representatives of original grantee, in accordance with law. The Writ has been filed on 28.12.1994. There is no grievance at present that the opposite parties have not co-operated in the expeditious disposal of application. If there would have been any such thing, or such grievance the petitioner would have asserted against the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar. That as the application Annexure-C has itself been moved under the SC ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »