Karnataka Court April 1995 Judgments
Gundali Basavanyappa Vs. G.S. Basavaraja
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1126; 1995(4)KarLJ629
Bharuka, J.1. This Appeal by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court by which the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed acceding to their claim of right of way through the Oni and Angala of defendants' house and that of discharging rain and drain waters through the suit drain (Kaluve).2. The entire suit property formerly belonged to the family of the contesting parties which was purchased by one Kori Halappa who subsequently sold the same to Uduchanda Hatappa. Defendants purchased half portion of the plaint schedule property bearing No. 30 from the said Hatappa under a registered Sale Deed dated 10.5.1961 (Exhibit P-2) and the other half portion bearing No. 29 was retained by the Vendor. Subsequently the said Halappa sold the other portion of the house bearing No. 30 to the plaintiffs under a registered Deed dated 21.4.1977 (Exhibit P-1). Admittedly the defendants had executed a registered document Exhibit P-3 dated 10.5.1961 contempora...
Tag this Judgment!Bheemanagowda Vs. Syed Murtuzakadri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1299; 1995(4)KarLJ399
Bharuka, J1. The substantial Question of Law as formulated at the time of admission is to the following effect:-'1) Whether the principle laid down by the Privy Council in NAWAZISH ALI KHAN v. ALI RAZA KHAN (A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 134) will apply to the case on hand or the Decision in KENCHAPPA v. SYED DAWOOD [1963(2) Mys. LJ. 31].'The suit is one for declaration of title and recovery of possession from the defendants. Both the Courts below have found the plaintiff to be one of the co-owners and has granted the decree for recovery of possession. The Decision of the Privy Council in the case of NAWAZISH ALI KHAN v. ALI RAZA KHAN AIR 1948 PC 134, has no bearing on the facts of the present case, since this Decision lays down the law relating to testamentary disposition of property by Shia Mahomedan governed by Mahomedan Law. The question pertaining to maintainability of suit for recovery of possession at the instance of ' one of the co-owners is no more restntegra since there are catena of Deci...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Asha S. Kini Vs. Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of F ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3122; 1995(3)KarLJ368
ORDER1. In this petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus the petitioner calls in question the validity of her husband's detention Under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu Sri. Subash Chandra D. Kini, has been taken into preventive custody in pursuance of an order dated 19th of August, 1994 issued by Sri. K. L. Varma, Joint Secretary to the Government, of India, specially empowered Under Section 3(1) of the Act aforesaid, in the following circumstances:The Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Regional Unit, Mangalore, appear to have received reliable information that some goods meant to be exported by a Vessel by the name MC EL NIEL from New Mangalore Port on the Ist of February, 1994 would not conform to the declaration made in the Shipping Bills. Acting on this information the Officers of the D.R.I. boarded the vessel in question which was at that time ready to set sail after completion of all cu...
Tag this Judgment!Geiminy Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: [1999]114STC259(Kar)
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued to him under section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90. The basis for initiation of proceedings under section 12A is the inspection report sent to the assessing authority on May 11, 1992. This report was not available on the date when the order was made for the assessment year 1988-89 because the order of assessment was made on June 10, 1989. In those circumstances on the fresh information obtained, it is certainly open to the assessing authority to reopen the matter. In that view of the matter there is no good reason to interfere with the reassessment proceedings relating to the assessment year 1988-89 and the proper course for the petitioner would be to file his objections and pursue the matter before the authorities concerned. 2. So far as the objection raised by the petitioner for the assessment year 1989-90 is concerned there is hardly any justification ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaratnamma Vs. Range Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1880
Venkataraman, J.1. This Appeal is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.6/83 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Arasikere, against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the first appellate Court in R.A.No. 19/89 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for redemption of the mortgage in favour of the defendant without the plaintiff depositing the mortgage amount.2. The parties will be referred to by the rank they held in the trial Court.3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage effected by him in respect of the suit house for a sum of Rs. 3,000/-. The plaintiff's case is that as per the Agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant (hereafter referred to as 'defendant'), the plaintiff had to continue in possession of the suit house paying interest at the rate of 1.5% per month; that the plaintiff paid the interest accordingly for two years; that the defendant however in execution of the decree obtained in HRC. No. 22/73 against the plai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›