Karnataka Court March 1995 Judgments
Rangaraj Vs. House Rent and Accommodation Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1316; 1995(3)KarLJ505
ORDERShivaprakash, J1. The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No. 26, situated in 6th Main Road, Vyalikaval Extension, Corporation Division No. 5 as shown in the 'Certificate' dated 30.10.1991 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, copy of which is marked as Annexure-A. The second floor of the said premises was notified for allotment by the respondent giving description of the property as No. 26, New No. 20, 13th Cross, 6th Main Road, Vyalikaval, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3. Copy of the Notification is marked as Annexure-C, In the said Notification the owner of the premises is shown as Dr. R. Mani, No. 30, Nagappa Road, Palace Guttahalli, Bangalore.2. According to the petitioner when he came to know of the Notification for allotment, he went to the office of the respondent on 11.12.1991 and realised that the same was notified for allotment under Reference No. HRC (N) ALT.634/91 showing the rent per month as Rs. 750/-. Aggrieved by...
Tag this Judgment!R. Jagadeesh Kumar Vs. P. Srinivasan and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant420; [1995]83CompCas677(Kar); ILR1995KAR954; 1995(2)KarLJ218
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner is a member of the Bangalore Stock Exchange Limited (hereinafter, for short, referred to as the 'stock exchange'). One T. S. Gopalakrishnan (sixth respondent) lodged a complaint to the effect that the petitioner fraudulently prepared a contract in collusion with one Ramachandra, the then assistant general manager, collected an amount of Rs. 2,25,000 directly from C. R. Thimmaiah and the balance of Rs. 2,75,000 from the defaults committee. The petitioner denied all these allegations. The council of management of the stock exchange requested Sri P. Srinivasan, first respondent herein, and Sri S. S. Naganand to go into the allegations and make a report thereto, in its meeting held on December 22, 1993. The first respondent and Sri Naganand are stated to have made a report that there is substance in the allegations contained in the complaint and asked the council of management to proceed further in the matter. However, later on this proceeding was sou...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraj Vs. Kalluramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1114; 1995(4)KarLJ1
Bharuka, J.1. This is a Second Appeal by the defendant who has lost in both the Courts below. The suit is one for redemption of usufructuary mortgage.2. According to the plaintiff the land measuring 19 guntas in survey No. 134/2B as described in the schedule to the plaint was owned by Chikkajogishetty who had mortgaged the same in favour of the defendant with possession by borrowing Rs. 1500/- under a registered possessory Mortgage Deed dated 21.11.1980 - Exhibit P- 2 for a period of five years. He subsequently sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 6000/- under a registered Sale Deed dated 7.2.1981 subject to mortgage with a right to redeem the same, which has been marked as Exhibit P-3. Accordingly the present suit for redemption was filed. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court.3. The present Appeal had been admitted for hearing on the following two Substantial Questions of Law :'1...
Tag this Judgment!Revanasiddappa Jeqargi, S/O Sadanadappa Jewargi, Major and Others Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-02-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant366; ILR1995KAR1440; 1995(2)KarLJ94
1. On behalf of the respondent to this appeal, an application has been filed for vacating the stay that has been granted by this Court. The entire controversy that is involved in this appeal can best be resolved once and for all rather than through the piece meal orders. I find that the appeal is directed against an ex parte decree passed by the trial Court on 21-7-1993 in a suit instituted by the present respondent. The dispute related to certain immoveable property and admittedly, the summons had been served on the defendants who failed to appear before the Court for which reason the learned trial Judge decreed the suit on 21-7-1993. On 24-8-1993, i.e., after the lapse of 34 days, an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C., was filed by the defendants who are the present appellants for setting aside the ex parte decree. The case made out was that the parties are related to each other, that after the service of the summons, a Panchayath was held in the village and that the elders h...
Tag this Judgment!Sri B.G. Somayaji and Another Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant344; [1995]83CompCas649b(Kar); 1995(3)KarLJ71
1. This is an appeal filed by two of the Directors of the Karnataka Bank Limited and is directed against an order dated 28-2-1995 on I.A. II whereby the learned trial Judge has declined to grant the application on the part of the appellants. The respondent No. 1 Bank has by a notice dated 27-1-1995 convened an extra-ordinary general meeting of the shareholders which is scheduled to be held on 2-3-1995 at 10.30 a.m. at Mangalore. The two appellants, who are directors of the bank had moved the trial Court principally on the ground that according to them there are certain irregularities/illegalities with regard to the convening of the general body meeting in question. Briefly stated, it is their contention, quite apart from certain mala fides which have been pleaded, that the requirements of law prescribe that the convening ofsuch a meeting has to be accompanied by an explanatory statement which is provided for under S. 173 of the Companies Act. The appellants who are the plaintiffs befor...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Kalpana theatre, Etc. Vs. B.S. Ravishankar Major and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-01-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Kant426; ILR1995KAR768; 1995(2)KarLJ460
ORDERG. T. Nanavati, C.J.1. In these three appeals, a common question of law arises as regards their maintainability under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act'). The objection raised in this behalf is that they are not appeals from the Judgment or Orders passed by a single Judge in exercise of the original jurisdiction.2. Section 4 of the Act, provides for an appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence passed by a single Judge in the exercise of the original jurisdiction under the Act or under any law for the time being in force, to a Bench consisting of two other Judges of the High Court.3. What is contended on behalf of the appellants is that the appellants had filed the petitions both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It was submitted that in those petitions, the appellants had challenged the orders passed by the Tribunals/ Courts on the ground that they are erroneous and not on the ground that the concerned Court/Tribunal had not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›