Karnataka Court June 1995 Judgments
Karigowda Vs. Safdar Ali
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-26-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3260; 1995(4)KarLJ293
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This is the defendant's Second Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22nd September, 1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chickmagalur in Rent Appeal No. 30/82 whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court dismissed the defendants' appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 7-7-1982 passed by the trial Court i.e., the Principal Munsiff and JMFC Chickmagalur in Regular Suit No. 29/1981.2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Suit No,29/81 with the allegations to the effect that defendant-appellant No. 1 was the tenant of the house in dispute, on a monthly rental of Rs. 40/-. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the property in dispute under Sale Deed dated 14.8.1980 from one D.K. Sheshappa Setty and the tenancy was attorned. According to the plaintiff's case, plaintiff is entitled to collect the rent as well as to take proceedings for eviction of the tenant i.e., defendant-appellant under the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. and Others Vs. Ganga Phos ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant136; 1995(3)KarLJ544
ORDER1. Sri K. Gopala Hegde is present in the Court. None appears for the respondent. Name of Sri K. S. Hanumantha Rao is shown in the cause list as the counsel for respondent No. 1. The list has been reversed and as such I proceed with the case. 2. I have heard Sri K. Gopala Hegde, the counsel for the petitioners. Sri K. Gopala Hegde has prayed for confirmation of the interim order as well as for sale of the property attached. 3. This petition is under S.30 of the Industrial Financial Corporation Act, 1948 (the 'Act' for short). Under this section the Corporation has been provided remedy to move an application for the reliefs mentioned in clause (a), (b) or (c) provided these are circumstances as mentioned in sub-sec. (1). Under sub-section it is provided 'where an industrial concern, in breach of, any agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any installment thereof (or in meeting its obligations in relation to the guarantee given by the Corporation) or othe...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarayadu Vs. Ramanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR747; 1996(2)KarLJ281
Murgod, J.1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 15.10.1981 passed by the learned Civil Judge in R.A.No. 50 of 1980 confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.6.1980 in O.S.No. 95 of 1977 on the file of the Munsiff, Pavagada.2. Facts giving rise to this Second Appeal are that defendants 3 to 5 original owners of the property in dispute agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff under an Agreement dated 28.2.1977. On their refusal to perform the Agreement, notice was got issued by the plaintiff to defendants 3 to 5 and also to defendant-2 on 11.6.1977. This was replied by the defendants 2 to 5 contending that defendant-2 had sold the same in favour of defendant-1 on 15.6.1977. Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for enforcement of the Agreement against defendants 1 to 5. The suit was for specific performance of the Agreement and also for injunction against defendants 3 to 5 who put the plaintiff in possession of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!B. Venkata Reddy and Others Vs. High Court of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ909; ILR1995KAR1954; 1995(5)KarLJ318
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order made in suo motu proceedings initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India in Writ Petition 5100/94. In the writ petition an order was made on 29-11-1994 as follows : 'Mr. Kalagi, learned High Court Government Pleaded accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Let the case be listed for final disposal on 5-1-1995. G.P. to secure the records and file the statement of objection. In the meanwhile, if the petitioner is in possession, the same shall not be disturbed.' Pursuant to this order, the office issued notice to the parties concerned along with the interim order granted by this Court and for the purpose of convenience it is extracted : 'Whereas a Writ Petition filed by the above named petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been registered by this Court. Read the Interim Order granted on 29-11-1994. Read I.A., filed on 19-11-1994 by the Advocate for the petitioner for directi...
Tag this Judgment!Puttegowda @ Ajjegowda Vs. Ramegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR465; 1996(5)KarLJ306
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This is the defendant's Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code from the Judgment and decree dated 29.1.1985, delivered by Civil Judge, Chikmagalur, in Regular Appeal No. 28/1981, out of the Judgment and decree dated 31.3.1981, in O.S.No. 341/1978, by the Court of Munsiff, Chikmagalur.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff-respondent claims to be the owner of the land shown in the Schedule-A to the plaint. According to the plaintiff's case, the entire area of the survey number concerned was 4 acres 29 guntas. Out of that area, an area of 2 acres 14 1/2 guntas belonged to the defendant - appellant and the remaining half of that land measuring 2 acres 14 1/2 belonged to the plaintiff, who had purchased it from the previous owner. According to the plaintiff's case, the original owner of the land was one Beeramma and that Beeramma transferred this land in two parts of 2 acres 14 1/2 guntas to two persons, namely, Patel Puttegow...
Tag this Judgment!Munimasthaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2323; 1996(1)KarLJ57
ORDERSadashiva, J.1. This Petition is listed for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents. Sri R. S. Hegde, learned Counsel for Bangalore Development Authority produced certain documents. The Petition was therefore taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides.2. This Petition was presented for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner for Regularization of unauthorised construction made in Site No. 49 of Survey No. 1 of Jarakabande Kaval village now called BDA No. 643, 4th Block, Nandini Layout and for a further direction to the second respondent not to dispossess him of the property in question until his application for Regularization is disposed of by the Screening Committee.3. The Regularization of unauthorised constructions in the urban areas is governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Regularization of Unauthorised Constructions in Urban Areas Act, 1991, (for short 'the ...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaraja Shetty Vs. Krishna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1156
Saldanha, J. 1. The basic issue involved in this Appeal is with regard to the true complexion and connotation of the concept of partition under Hindu Law in relation to joint family property or for that matter assets of a Hindu Undivided Family. The controversy centres around that question as to whether a mere act of separation from the family for purposes of separate residence or for that matter, for the setting up of an independent business for means of livelihood along with evidence of some amount of money or property having been obtained at the point of time when the alienation took place can be determined as an act of partition. The facts as will be set out by me hereinafter, in brief, are hardly in dispute and the solitary point involved in this Appeal is as to whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to claim his share out of the original joint family assets or whether he is liable to be excluded from them on the ground that he is bound by the arrangement or partition that ha...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tarabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1995
Reported in: 1995ACJ1067; ILR1995KAR2364; 1995(3)KarLJ556
Venkataraman, J.Heard.1. The first respondent who is the mother of the deceased Arun claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the death of her son when the scooter on which he was riding skidded and the deceased sustained injuries resulting in his death. The owner of the scooter as well as the insurer were made as respondents. The Tribunal having found that the accident did not take place due to any rash or negligent act on the part of the first respondent, but on the other hand on account of the skidding of the vehicle, held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Tribunal which found on the material on record that the son of the petitioner died in an accident in which the motor vehicle was used was of the opinion that the petitioner was entitled to compensation on the principle of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act and has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.2. The m...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayakumar Vs. Dr. H.S. Hanumanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2872; 1995(4)KarLJ634
Saldanha, J1. I have heard the appellants' learned Advocate in some detail in this Appeal. The appellants represent the original defendants against whom the decree has been passed. It is a decree for possession and payment of certain mesne profits. In the first instance, appellants' learned Advocate submits that the entire case of plaintiff is that he is the allottee of the disputed site and therefore entitled to possession thereof is incorrect for the reason that the allotment made to him by the B.D.A. was subsequently cancelled insofar as the Authority had taken a decision to reconvey the site to the original revenue holder. The appellants' learned Advocate submits that consequently, the rights of his client stands revived by virtue of this decision. An application was made before the trial Court for production of all the relevant records from the B.D.A. A few records other than those which support their case were received but the record also indicates that the defendants thereafter ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Mysore Vs. R. Keshavamurthy Naidu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-21-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2957; 1995(5)KarLJ516
ORDERVishwanath, J1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner/plaintiff. The respondents/defendants have been served with notice of this Revision Petition, but they are not represented.2. In this Revision Petition the Revision petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 15.9.1994 passed in O.S.No. 500/89 by the Prl.Munsiff, Chitradurga, rejecting I.A.II filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. by the plaintiff.3. Originally, the suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants with respect to the crop loan as well as the plantation loan. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the coconut plantation loan which had not become due on the date of the filing of the suit was deleted from the suit on the ground that it was premature. Consequently the plaint was amended.4. After the plaint was amended the suit continued and has been continuing. During the continuation of the suit, the coconut plantation loan has since become due. In respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »