Karnataka Court March 1995 Judgments
Chandrappa Vs. Subramanya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1555
ORDERShiva Prakash, J.1. This second Revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., is presented by the tenant aggrieved by the order passed by the first Revisional Court allowing the petition of the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' for short).2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The eviction petition was instituted by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Act. The trial Court rejected the claim made by the landlord under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act. But in so far as the claim made under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, the trial Court found that the actual rate of rent was Rs. 15/- per month and the tenant was in arrears of rent to the extent of Rs. 140/-. The trial Court gave one month's time to the tenant to make payment. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, the landlord preferred revision under Section 50 of the Act to the District Court at Shimoga.3. Before the first revisional Court the landlord gave up his...
Tag this Judgment!Sushila Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1729
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.6.1993 passed in LAC 242/86 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Chikodi dismissing IA.No. I under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for an order to implead the petitioners as claimants.2. The facts very briefly are that a Preliminary Notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was published on 20.12.1977 with respect to the acquisition of the land belonging to the Temple known as Sri. Shidalingeshwar Devasthan. The claimant on behalf of the Temple was one Kalayya Girimallya Mathapati. The petitioners' mother Laxmibai died on 22.1.1979 who was claiming to be in possession of the land that was sought to be acquired even at the time of the Preliminary Notification. Subsequently a declaration was made under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 9.1.1980. After that on 19.10.1983, the petitioners herein, being the legal representatives of the said occupant late Smt. L...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Wakf Board Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant55; ILR1995KAR3031; 1995(4)KarLJ326
ORDERAswathanarayana Rao J.1. This is a defendant's appeal. The first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 1/1981 on the file of Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur against the appellant, who was the first defendant, and respondent Nos. 2, 2A, 2B and 3, who were defendant Nos. 2, 2A, 2B and 3 respectively for a declaration of its title to the suit properly namely property bearing CTS No. 34B in Ward VI of Bijapur City, for a declaration that the Notification published by the first defendant under No. KTW 531, ASR/74/7490 dated 24-1-1976 and also the Gazette Notification at page No. 608 dated 8-7-1976 in Part VI relating to the suit property are illegal and void. Further, the plaintiff sought for a declaration that the order passed by the third defendant under No. WKF. SR. 6(V) dated 10-1-1980 is illegal and void, for deletion of the entries in the revenue records in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 2B in respect of the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining t...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Karnataka Ball Bearing Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/S. DolphIn Fisherie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant330; [1995]83CompCas544(Kar); ILR1995KAR784; 1995(3)KarLJ577
ORDERMr. S. A. Hakeem Ag., C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the winding up order dated 7-1-1994 passed by the learned Company Judge in Company Petition No. 10 of 1988.2. In order to appreciate the question of law arising in this case, it is appropriate to briefly refer to undisputed facts and the chronological events leading to passing of the impugned order.3. The appellant is a public limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, having its Registered Office as well as Factory at Mysore. The 1st respondent herein claiming to be a creditor, filed a petition for winding up of the Company on the ground under Sections 433(e) and 434(1)(a) and (c) of the Companies Act seeking winding up of the Company for non-payment of certain amounts due to it. The said petition was admitted on 12-2- 1988. While the said petition was pending, the Company having become a sick industrial unit made a reference before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. John D'souza and anothe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2292; 1995(4)KarLJ361
1. Is there to be any sense of finality to the decisions of this Court or, does a litigant and his lawyer have the absolute licence to keep on reopening issues after a final determination is the central question that requires to be once and for all set at rest. Does the law envisage multiple and recurrent stages of argument at the post-final decisional stage is the question that will have to be determined in the light of a so called practice that is to be increasingly current in this High Court under the guise of 'being spoken to'. While it is accepted that an application would lie to the Court to correct a typographical error that has inadvertently remained in the final judgment or order or to carry out some other minor or cosmetic rectification such as in a case where some little ambiguity has remained with regard to the direction, operative part of the order, time, period, etc., this facility is not to be misunderstood and misused for purposes of reopening and re-arguing a case and ...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Bangalore Turf Club Vs. Prakash Srivatsava
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1566; 1995(2)KarLJ201
Saldanha, J. 1. These two Appeals which have been preferred by the Bangalore Turf Club & Others raise an interesting issue of some consequence not only to the present appellants but to a large number of situations of the present type that are increasingly coming up before the Law Courts. Under the Rules and Regulations applicable to various clubs, organisations and authorities not to mention companies and corporations disputes are manifest in relation to the passing of what may broadly be termed as disciplinary orders. Where there is a charge of misconduct or impropriety or a corrupt practice is alleged, there are two stages that the proceedings go through. The first of them is invariably the interlocutory one when certain transitory action is taken such as an order of suspension or the issue of a charge sheet etc. and the second being the terminal stage when an adverse order often follows. Regardless of the rigour of such orders they are challenged on numerous occasions through variou...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnamma and Others Vs. N. Nagaraj and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant11; ILR1995KAR1561; 1995(2)KarLJ232
1. M.F.A. No. 49/1994 appeared on board before this Court for orders on 9-2-1995. Respondent-3 to the appeal had filed an I. A. for early hearing. It was his contention that the interim order passed by this Court was prejudicial to him. It was further contended that the other respondents had already applied to the High Court to vacate the interim order and that this Court rejected the application. The respondents filed I.A. III praying that this Court should reconsider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders. It is relevant for me topoint out that the dispute relates to certain properties and that the plaintiffs before the trial Court have contended that their shares of the joint family properties should be carved out and allotted to them. They allege that some of the respondents have been acting prejudicially to the interest of the joint family and it was further averred in the plaint that there are admissions in the earlier litigations to the effect that the disputed propert...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and Another Vs. Hanumanthappa Kariyappa Talawar and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)298; 1995CriLJ2711; ILR1995KAR1280; 1995(2)KarLJ158
Mirdhe, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 103/1992 is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 12-11-1991 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharawad, in S.C. No. 70/1987 acquitting the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. Criminal Appeal No. 582/1991 is preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment dated 12-11-1991 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharawad, in S.C. No. 70/1987, convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304 Part-I, 326 and 324, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, 2 years and 1 year respectively and ordering the sentence to run concurrently. 2. Since both these appeals are preferred against the same judgment, we have heard them together and we are passing a common judgment in both these appeals. 3. We have heard Sri A. B. Patil, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, for the State, and Sri R. B. Deshpa...
Tag this Judgment!Tulasamma Vs. Srinivasan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1328; 1995(2)KarLJ300
Saldanha, J1. Heard appellant's learned Advocate and respondent's learned Advocate.2. The principal ground on which the order passed by the trial Court has been challenged by the appellant's learned Advocate is that according to him, the appellant had applied to the Land Reforms Tribunal for a declaration in his favour in respect of the entire area of two acres of land. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's contention to the extent of one acre and 10 guntas and disallowed it in respect of 30 guntas. It is in respect of this 30 guntas that the present dispute has arisen. It is his submission that this is a matter within the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and that consequently, the Civil Court having regard to the provisions of the Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act, has no jurisdiction to enquire into a dispute or pass any orders. He, therefore, submits, that in the first instance, the impugned order is without jurisdiction.3. As far as this point of law is concerned, the position ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Lakshmamma, Alias Lakkamma Vs. Sombegowda S/O Kodigowda and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant326; ILR1995KAR1119; 1995(2)KarLJ228
1. This second appeal has been preferred by defendant No. 3. The plaintiff had brought the present suit for declaration of his title over the suit lands and grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the same.2. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 17-5-1977 (Ex.P-1) executed by defendants 7 and 8. Defendant No. 7 has two wives viz.,-defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 8. He had only two daughters from the first wife defendant No. 3 who have been married to first and sixth defendants. The other defendants are their relations. According to the plaintiff, the necessity for filing the suit arose because defendants 1 to 6 were trying to disturb his possession over the suit properties.3. Defendant No. 3, the first wife of defendant No. 7 by relying on the document Ex.D-2 dated 15-5-1970, described as a family arrangement, sought to resist the claim of the plaintiff by pleading that under the sa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »