Karnataka Court July 1995 Judgments
Ramesh Govind Kulkarni Vs. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2063; 1995(5)KarLJ202
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. These Writ Petitions have been filed by the Petitioners for quashing of the order dated 19th April, 1994 passed by the Respondent-Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-A) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners on the ground of limitation.2. The said appeals being numbered 427, 428, 623, 626 and 627 and 1991 were filed before the Tribunal under Section 105 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 (the Act for short) against the award of the Honorary Arbitrator of the Co-operative Societies. The office of the Tribunal on computation of limitation found four appeals being Nos.427/91, 625/91, 626/91 and 627/91 to be well within time after excluding the time taken in obtaining certified copies of the impugned award. But the Appeal No. 428 of 1991 was found to be belated by 92 days. The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals by taking a view that even for seeking exclusion of the requisite time taken in obtaining copies, a separat...
Tag this Judgment!Anjanappa Vs. Byrappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2495; 1995(5)KarLJ459
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This is the Defendants' Second Appeal arising from the Judgment and Decree dated 9th July, 1987 delivered by (Sri K. Ishwar Bhat) the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore in R.A.No. 16 of 1981 whereby the learned Civil Judge, dismissed the Defendant's First Appeal which had arisen from the Judgment and Decree dated 31.8.1979 passed in O.S.No. 240 of 1968 by the learned Munsiff, Doddaballapur, decreeing the claim of the plaintiffs in the above mentioned suit for partition of 1/3rd share in the suit properties and affirming the Trial Court decree.2. The following is the pedigree for the purpose of the case and Decision. Muniyappa _______________________________________________________ | | | Byrappa Kempanna Nanjappa (Plaintiff 1) | (Deft 1) ____________|_____________ | __________|______________ | | | | (Deft 5 & 6) | | | Pltf 2, 3, 4 & 5 Deft 2 Deft 3 Deft 4 in this suit.3. The Plaintiffs-Respondents filed a suit for a declaration to the ef...
Tag this Judgment!Chief Secretary Vs. S.S. Prasad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3576; 1995(4)KarLJ579
Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned Government Advocate.2. This Appeal is totally and completely devoid of substance. The brief facts are that the respondent who is the original plaintiff, contended before the City Civil Court that when he happened to check his S.S.L.C. marks card, he found his date of birth has wrongly been entered therein. According to him, the Certificate mentions the date of birth as 7.8.1962 when in fact, the correct date of birth is 7.6.1963. The relief asked for is directed against the second respondent, namely, the Secretary, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board as it is that authority which is required to carry out the correction in the Certificate in question.3. The learned trial Judge has accepted the Birth Certificate issued by the statutorily designated authority as also the supportive evidence adduced by the plaintiff which conclusively indicates that his correct date of birth is in fact 7.6.1963 and that, consequently, the learned trial Judge held th...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Shanidevara Seva Mandali Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore City Corporat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-05-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3579; 1995(5)KarLJ523
Saldanha, J.1. Heard Appellant's learned Advocate.2. This Appeal was argued on an earlier occasion and was fixed for further arguments today. The appellant's learned Advocate has submitted that the disputed structure as far as the present Appeal is concerned is a small Temple which admittedly was constructed several years back. There has been some past litigation in this regard, but that was by some other persons and not by the present appellants who are as of now looking after the Temple. His basic submission is that the area is alleged to have been acquired several years back, but that the possession of the same was never taken over and in this regard, he submits that even if some acquisition proceedings were commenced, that they have not reached the stage of finality and that the appellants are entitled to protection in so far as they were never dispossessed from the property in question. He elaborates on his submission because, he has referred to the provisions of the Land Acquisit...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Jahir Vs. Nazrath Fatima
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)675; 1995CriLJ3822; I(1996)DMC184; ILR1995KAR2259; 1995(3)KarLJ279
ORDER1. Petitioner is the husband. First Respondent is the wife. Second, Third and Fourth respondents are minor children of the petitioner and the first respondent. Petitioner and first respondent were married according to the Mohammedan custom on 4-5-1975. Petitioner divorced the first respondent under Mohammedan Law on 13-10-1984. It is also not in dispute that subsequent to the pronouncement of 'Thalak' and issue of notice in this regard, the first respondent filed a petition under S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- in respect of each of the respondents as monthly maintenance. 2. The learned Magistrate passed an order on 27-3-1987 directing the payment of maintenance. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27-3-1987, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 360/1987 before this Court. The matter was disposed of by this Court on 18-7-1988 by remitting the matter to the learned Magistrate for fresh disposal after giving...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2419; 1995(5)KarLJ208
Eswara Prasad, J.1. This Appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No. 5744/1987 filed by the 7th respondent whereby the order of the 2nd respondent - The Special Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur dated 28.4.1977, and the order of the 6th respondent - Land Tribunal, were quashed.2. The brief facts are as follows:-One Smt. Laxmidevamma, ancestor of the seventh respondent on 23.1.1909 gifted the land measuring 3 Acres 13 Guntas in Amanikere, Tumkur Taluk in favour of the 4th respondent deity Sri Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple and a Gift Deed was executed by her Agnate on 20.11.1916. The appellant, claiming occupancy rights under Section 6(a) of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 applied to the second respondent for registration as an occupant, contending that he is a tenant in occupation of the land by virtue of Panchsal (five years) Gutha. The claim of the appellant was accepted and the 2nd respondent by an order dated 28.4.1977 in Anne...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Vs. Deputy Commissioner for Transport
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2177; 1995(4)KarLJ504
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This Writ Petition has- been filed for quashing the order dated 26.3.1994 passed by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Sagar (Respondent No. 2) demanding a sum of Rs. 1,067/- being the penalty leviable for delayed payment of tax for the period of July 1993.2. Petitioner is the owner of vehicle bearing No, AP-13/T-2980. According to him, his principal place of business is at Shikaripura in the District of Shimoga. The said vehicle had been purchased by him at Hyderabad. According to his claim, the vehicle was brought in the State of Karnataka only in the month of June 1993 and he had given necessary information in this regard in the prescribed Form No. 27 as required under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. His further case is that on 15.7.1993 subsequent to bringing the vehicle to this State ho paid the tax for the month of July 1993. But on insistence by the second respondent he had deposited the tax also for the month of June 1993 being Rs. 5,335/-. Subs...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Murthy Vs. Venkateshalu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2876
Saldanha, J1. Two issues, both of which are of slightly unusual complexion, have been canvassed by the parties to this Appeal. The first of them, strangely enough concerns the question of the identity of Plaintiff No. 1's sisters, in so far as the defendants who are the second wife and the children have contended that whereas plaintiff No. 1 was the son of the deceased G.V. Balakrishna, that he was the only child and that the sisters who are today arraigned as co-plaintiffs either personally or through their L.Rs. are impostors. The learned trial Judge has accepted them to be as genuinely belonging to the family and has therefore upheld a claim for a share in the properly of deceased Balakrishna. The issue that is seriously debated centres around the question as to whether, in the face of the stand taken by the defendants, the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their identity. The allied issue that falls for determination is the question as to whether, the property that is now i...
Tag this Judgment!Vokkaligara Sannappa Vs. Vokkaligara Annaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3286; 1996(1)KarLJ25
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This is a plaintiff's Second Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated 18.12.1984, passed by Civil Judge, Madikeri, in Regular Appeal No. 39/1980, whereby, the learned lower appellate Court has reversed the Judgment and decree dated 5.7.1980, passed by Munsiff, Virajpet, decreeing the plaintiff's claim in the Original Suit No. 148/1979, and after setting aside the Trial Court's decree allowing the defendant's appeal and dismissing the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit.2. The plaintiff case appellant's be in brief is that the plaintiff -appellant in the present case filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants - respondents and their agents as well as the servants from interfering with the plaintiff's right and possession and enjoyment of suit property.3. Plaintiff's case has been that he is in exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute more specifically described in the plaint schedule,...
Tag this Judgment!B. Narayana Murthy and ors. Vs. B. Venkateshalu and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC16; 1995(4)KarLJ553
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Two issues, both of which are of slightly unusual complexion, have been canvassed by the parties to this appeal. The first of them, strangely enough concerns the question of the identity of Plaintiff No. l's sisters, in so far as the defendants who are the second wife and the children have contended that whereas plaintiff No. 1 was the son of the deceased G.V. Balakrishna, that he was the only child and that the sisters who are today arraigned as co-plaintiffs either personally or through their L. Rs. are impostors. The learned Trial Judge has accepted them to be as genuinely 'belonging to the family and has therefore upheld a claim for a share in the property of deceased Balakrishna. The issue that is seriously debated centres around the question as to whether, in the face of the stand taken by the defendants, the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their identity. The allied issue that falls for determination is the question as to whether, the property that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »