Karnataka Court October 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.
Padma Bai Vs. Anasuya R. Kabady
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR97; 1995(6)KarLJ67
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J 1. This Revision Petition arises from order dated 6.2.1995 passed on the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC., in a suit under Order 34 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Revision was listed along with an application for vacation of stay order. The parties in the case are represented, plaintiff-respondent had moved an application for vacation of stay order and sought the early listing of that case. On behalf of the Counsel for the applicant desired as well as Counsel for all the respondents agreed that the Revision, may itself be heard and disposed of. Respondents 2 and 3 are also served and are represented by Sri H.R. Viswanath who put his appearance on their behalf, while Sri K.R. Nagendra appeared for plaintiff-respondent. The vacating of stay order no doubt will allow the suit to proceed but in case the Revision is allowed and suit is decided earlier than the Revision revisional order may become infructuous.2. I have heard Sri P. Ganapathy Bhat, C...
Paras JaIn Vs. House Rent and Accommodation Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-17-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3127; 1995(6)KarLJ425
M.L. Pendse, C.J.1. The dispute in this Appeal is in respect of first floor of house No. 38, 5th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore. The premises were allotted to Deomal Murlidhar Bhatija in the year 1963 by Rent Controller in accordance with the provision of Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The allottee had died leaving behind respondents-2 to 6 as legal representatives. The appellant is one of the co-owners of the property and claims to be residing in a rented house. The remaining co-owners are also residing in rented premises. The co-owners filed petition under Section 21-A(2) of the Act, for recovery of possession of the premises in occupation of respondents-2 to 6. The appellant claims that respondents-2 to 6 who are the sons of the original allottee have acquired house premises bearing Nos. 42, 43 and 43-A situated at Marenhaily village and known as Chakravarthi Layout. The proceedings were resisted by respondents-2 to 6 claiming that only Haril...
M.B. Nagendra Simha and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3202; [1996]219ITR100(KAR); [1996]219ITR100(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ280
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the revisional order dt. 11th July, 1994 (Annexures F & L) passed by the respondent CIT under s. 264 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) upholding the orders of the respondent ITO (Annexures D & J) whereby the applications of the petitioners for waiver of interest levied under ss. 139(8) and 215 of the Act had been rejected. 2. The first petitioner is the partner in two firms namely M/s M. V. Bhojiah B. A. and M/s Bhojayya Sons. Though these firms had filed returns for the asst. yr. 1988-89 on 27th March, 1989 and 22nd Nov., 1988 respectively, but the petitioner filed his return much belatedly, i.e., on 1st May, 1991. He also appears to have failed to pay the advance tax in accordance with the provisions under the Act. Accordingly interest was levied against him under ss. 139(8) and 215 of the Act rejecting his prayer for waiver of the same by the order dt. 9th March, 1993 (Annexure D), but by...
Talari Thippeswamy Vs. Doddappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR750; 1996(1)KarLJ89
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This Revision is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 18th September, 1995, whereby the learned Munsiff, Bellary, dismissed the Revision petitioner's application for setting aside the sale under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. A preliminary objection had been raised on behalf of Respondent by Sri Basavaraja Kareddy that the order is appealable and the present Revision is not maintainable in view of provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submitted that the order impugned herein is appealable and the appeal lies to the District Court. The learned Counsel for the applicant tried to meet the objections by submitting that expression of Section 47 has been removed from the definition of the decree and as the order does not amount to decree, there is no question of appeal being filed and as such the Revision is entertainable. Later on the learned Counsel for the petitioner invited ...
Madaiah Vs. Satyaji Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1168; 1996(2)KarLJ305
ORDERSreenivasa Reddy, J. 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.9.91 of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore City passed in M.A.(EAT) 32/88 vide Annexure 'G' to the Petition and has further prayed for quashing the order dated 30-9-91 passed by the second respondent herein reverting the petitioner, vide Annexure 'H' and to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to promote the petitioner retrospectively and continue him in service as Head Master of APS Rural High School, Somanahalli run by the second respondent herein.2. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste. In the year 1981 he was appointed as the Assistant Master in the above High School run by the second respondent at Somanahalli. As per Annexure 'B' dated 23-3-88 he was promoted as officiating Head Master and posted to APS Boys High School, Bangalore, with effect from 31 -3-88. The said promotion was made pursuant to the vacancy occurred on the superannuation of Sri S.Keshava Rao, who was...
A.P. Nagaraj Vs. V.R. Krishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant202; ILR1996KAR753
ORDER1. This is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff-applicant filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suitproperty in O.S. No. 117/93. The plaintiff claimed that under an agreement to sell dated 28-5-1985, the respondent agreed to sell the property in dispute for a sale consideration of Rs. 52,000/-. According to the plaintiffs case the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration on different dates as and when defendant demanded and he put the plaintiff into possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiff filed the suit with the allegation that defendant threatened to interfere and tried to take possession of the same from the plaintiff, so the plaintiff filed the suit for decree for permanent injunction. Plaintiff claim himself entitled to the possession of the land in dispute under that agreement. Along with the plaint of the the su...
Ningappa Lamani Vs. Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Yel ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1274; 1996(2)KarLJ353
ORDERPrasad, J.1. The petitioner challenges the order of the first respondent dated 31-12-1994 in Annexure-A terminating the services of the petitioner under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 as illegal and arbitrary and made without jurisdiction.2. The petitioner is appointed as a Constable in C.R.P.F. (Central Reserve Police Force) and later his services were terminated. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the said order and this Court by judgment dated 19-3-1994 in W.P. No. 18841 of 1990 dismissed the writ petition, while observing that the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh application seeking some other suitable post and if such a request is made, the respondents were directed to consider the same. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made an application for appointment to suitable post and the petitioner was appointed as Water Carrier by order dated 13-7-1994 vide Annexure-R3. Later, on the representation of the petiti...
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3013; 1996(1)KarLJ92
ORDER IN BEING APPEALED AGAINST: Held:Section 8A is in two parts. The first part provides thatperformance of any contract by the State Government insofar as it provides for reimbursement or indemnification shall be deemed always to have been dispensed with. The second part providesthat any amount due or payable by the State Government by way of such reimbursement or indemnification shall be deemed to bewholly discharged.ON FACTS: The amendment of Section 8A cannot nullify the effect of Writ of Mandamus issued by this Court and the respondents cannot decline to reimburse or indemnify the Company for the period commencing from November 21, 1980 and ending with August 11, 1988 when the Division Bench issued a Writ of Mandamus....The Decision of the Division Bench of this Court issuing Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Karnataka to reimburse the Company in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6(c) of the Tripartite Agreement, is a Judgment inter partes and rendered on the basis o...
Subramani Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3139; 1995(6)KarLJ476
ORDERK.S. Bakthavatsalam, J.1. These Writ Petitions are preferred against certain acquisition of lands made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short The L.A. Act') for the Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees' House Building Co-operative Society Limited, High Court Building, Bangalore. The first two of these Writ Petitions are filed styling to be Public Interest Litigation by two practising Advocates of this Court and the third one is filed by an owner of a piece of land involved in the acquisition.2. The facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions can be stated thus :The Karnataka State Judicial Department Employees' House Building Co-operative Society (in short 'the Society') was registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 on 11.8.1983. It seems the members of the Society includes the members of the Judicial Department, members of the Subordinate Judiciary and also certain sitting, transferred and retired Judges of this Court. It seems the S...
Sreenivasulu S. Vs. Lic Housing Finance Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ406Kant
ORDERJ. Eswara Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner applied for a post of Junior Executive Assistant in the respondent-LIC Housing Finance Limited complaining that out of the 15 posts which were advertised none was given to the applicants belonging to Backward Classes, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, claiming to belong to a Backward Community, for issuance of a writ of mandamus or direction as the case may be declaring (sic.) the action of the respondent in selecting and appointing only SC/ST candidates and general merit candidates without considering the persons belonging to Backward Classes as arbitrary and illegal.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belongs to a Backward Community and was entitled to be considered for being appointed to one of the posts. His claim is based on Official Memorandum of Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions dated August 13, 1990 in Annexure-E.3. The respondent filed statement of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »