Karnataka Court February 1995 Judgments
B.R. Baliga and Others Vs. Town Municipal Council, Udupi and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant85; ILR1995KAR1542; 1995(4)KarLJ408
ORDER1. The petitioners residents of Udupi Town have filed this writ petition by way of public interest litigation, seeking directions of this Court prohibiting the first respondent from constructing of any commercial building in Survey No. 115/1A 2AI of Moodanidambur, Udupi Town and for the removal of the construction already made. 2. According to the petitioners, the land measuring 1 Acre 79 Cents is reserved under the Transport and Communication Zone and is situated in the heart of Udupi Town, adjacent to the K. M. Marg leading to the State Highway. As per the approved Outline Development Plan ('ODP' for short) and the Comprehensive Development Plan ('CDP' for short) published by the 2nd respondent Udupi and Malpe Town Planning Authority, the width of K. M. Marg is required to be 80' and the existing road available at present is only 20' and hence no fresh licence for construction could be permitted within 40' from the middle of the road. It is further stated that in fact the first ...
Tag this Judgment!Farhathunnissa Vs. Rahimmunnissa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1153; 1995(2)KarLJ148
Saldanha, J.1. This Appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the learned Judge presiding over the XV Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore City, dated 26.11.1994 in O.S.No. 2204/1994.. It is unnecessary for me to go into detailed recitals because the two plaintiffs before the trial Court who are the respondents herein claim to be the daughters of one Syed Habibulla. They are the married daughters and the dispute pertains to certain non-residential premises in respect of which the deceased father was the tenant. After his death, the wife and two sons claim to be the persons on whom the tenancy rights had devolved and the contention was that one of the sons was running a watch repairing business in the premises after the death of the father in 1984. The other son who was residing separately had nothing to do with these premises. The Rent Control Court passed a decree of eviction in the year 1989 and it is relevant to point out that the matter was carried in Revision to this...
Tag this Judgment!Akberali Sons Estate Vs. the Pen Shop
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-18-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1400; 1995(6)KarLJ206
ORDERBharuka, J.1. These three Revision Applications have been filed by the landlord against a common order passed in three eviction proceedings brought by them against three tenants occupying different portions of the petition premises (also hereinafter called 'the building'), under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short). The grounds of eviction as pleaded by the landlord being common in all the three proceedings being based on personal necessity coupled with requirement of demolition and reconstruction for self-occupation, these eviction proceedings have been disposed of by the Small Causes Court by a common impugned order by holding a common trial.2. The building according to the evidence on record is now about 80 years old and the rear portion of the same is in a dilapidated condition. Even according to RW-5, a Consulting Engineer, who had deposed in 1983, the building could withstand for another twenty years. Therefore, now the building can...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Thukral and Another Vs. Krone Communication Ltd. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas648(Kar); ILR1995KAR1142; 1995(2)KarLJ107
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. An unusual dimension of the law in relation to sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, has arisen in this case. Chapter VI of the Act basically deals with cleansing action or, more correctly defined, with the supervisory powers of the Company Law Board directed towards maintenance of purity of administration and functioning of a company which is why, the Chapter has rightly been titled PREVENTION OF OPPRESSION AND MISMANAGEMENT. A member of the company is entitled to apply for relief in cases of oppression and similarly, in cases of mismanagement. What is important is that the sections deal with the concept of preventive action essentially in order to forestall the damaging effects of such wrongful activity. In this regard, therefore, it is essential that the legislative intent, namely, that the relief should be prophylactic rather than curative requires to be emphasised. While considering pleas of this type, the Company Law Board and the court will have to...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandraiah Vs. Nagappa Naidu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-17-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR970
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. R.F.A.No. 688/87 came up for hearing before this Court in normal course on 30.11.1994. At that point of time, the matter was 7 years old. Even though the appellant's learned Advocate is unable so much as to give me the dates of hearing on which this Appeal was heard by me, which only indicates the manner in which this case has been conducted and the degree of professionalism that is prevalent in some quarters, I distinctly recall that this Appeal was argued before the Court on different dates of hearing by the appellant's learned Advocate. The order sheet is also silent with regard to the dates on which the Appeal was heard which also shows how the records in this Court are maintained. The arguments had proceeded on these dates of hearing, because this was a reasonably heavy matter and involved several issues. The record was carefully checked by me and I found that apart from the earlier notice, that notice of the hearing had been served by the office of this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. B.B. Patil Okaly Vs. Y.K. Puttasome Gowda and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant14; ILR1995KAR816; 1995(2)KarLJ537
ORDER1. The petitioner was appointed as a Member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the KPSC) in terms of Art. 316 of the Constitution of India on 5-3-1991 and he assumed office on 25-3-1991. The 1st respondent was appointed as Member of the KPSC on 14-10-1991 and he assumed office on 2-12-1991. The term of office of Dr. Doddegowda who was the Chairman of the KPSC came to an end on 27-7-1994. The petitioner claims that he having been appointed earlier to the 1st respondent as Member of the KPSC, he is senior to him and he became the first Member, while the 1st respondent became the second Member of the KPSC and the established convention is to appoint the Chairman of the KPSC by following the seniority in appointment in KPSC. On the expiry of the term of Dr. Doddegowda, the 1st respondent was appointed as Chairman of the KPSC under the Notification issued on 26th July, 1994 by the Governor and that notification also made appointment of certain other ...
Tag this Judgment!M.G. Gopinath Vs. S.R. Ranka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: [1995]83CompCas882a(Kar)
A.B. Murgod, J.1. Admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in this revision petition has been convicted of an offence under section 138, read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and has been ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 24,204 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. His appeal to the Sessions Judge was also rejected. Hence, the revision petition. 3. The facts are, the petitioner and the respondent had business dealings and the petitioner had issued a cheque in a sum of Rs. 12,103 dated September 15, 1990, bearing No. 28929 drawn on Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd., to the respondent. The respondent presented the cheque for encashment but, the same bounced and after due notice, the respondent initiated prosecution by lodging a complaint under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner appeared and pleaded guilty and on his plea, the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced him as stated above. I...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataraman Ganapayya Hegde Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR781; 1995(3)KarLJ243
ORDERHakeem, J.1. By an order dated 25.11.81, the petitioner was recognised as a tenant and occupancy rights granted to him in respect of certain lands. In the year 1988 the Tahsildar determined the amount of premium payable by the petitioner at Rs. 12,456.25. This order being challenged in appeal under Section 118 of the Land Reforms Act, was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and the matter remitted for fresh determination by the Tahsildar. On 19.10.89 the Tahsildar re-determined the amount of premium at Rs. 8,935.50 with interest thereon at 5 1/2% from the order granting occupancy rights. This order being challenged in appeal was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on 27.12.89. In this Petition, the petitioner has restricted his challenge to the award of interest on the premium which according to him is illegal and without authority of law.2. The only provision pertaining to payment of premium by the tenant is Section 53 of the Act, the relevant portion of which reads as un...
Tag this Judgment!Sunitha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank and Syndicate Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR779; 1995(6)KarLJ198
ORDERHakeem, J.1. This Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(na) of the C.P.C. is directed against the order of the Court below dismissing the appellant's application under Order 33 Rule 1 of C.P.C. to sue as a indigent person.2. When the Appeal came up for orders before the learned Single Judge on 10.08.94, on the submission of the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2, the office was directed to place it before the Division Bench since the suit is for recovery of Rs. 32 lakhs and odd, and hence required to be posted before the Division Bench in accordance with amended Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is not in dispute that the order of the learned Judge is not an Order of Reference under Section 9 of the Act. The contention of Sri Aswath Ram, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 appears to be that since the Appeal arises out of an order passed in the proceedings in a suit, the value of which exceeds Rs. 3 lakhs, the amended Section 5 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Sharada Bai Vs. Managing Director, Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1995
Reported in: 1995ACJ1212; ILR1995KAR1320
Saldanha, J1. This Appeal raises a point of law of some consequence having regard to the unusual circumstances of the case. The issue centres around the question as to whether the liability as far as negligence is concerned is confined only to the action or non-action on the part of the driver or whether in the case of public transport vehicles the concept extends also to other members of the operating group, The facts are extremely clear insofar as the deceased Siddalingappa who was aged about 30 years had travelled in a K.S.R.T.C. passenger bus from Ghanagapur Station to Vaijapur on 6.11.1988. He was an agriculturist and the bus had halted at Vaijapur bus stop at which time the deceased got on to the top of the bus and unloaded two bags of . coconuts belonging to him. He was in the process of unloading the third bag when it is alleged that the bus moved forward suddenly and that he was either thrown or fell off the top of the bus. As a result of the fall, he sustained injuries and wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »