Karnataka Court June 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ananda Transport Co. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2805; 1996(6)KarLJ306
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. This Writ Petition calls in question the validity of the imposition and recovery of toll on Motor Vehicles registered under the Motor Vehicles Act 1957, passing through the limits of the Town Municipal Council, Annageri and for a mandamus directing the said Municipal Council to remove the Road barriers put up by it on the National High-way between Hubli to Sholapur via Gadag. The facts in brief may be stated thus.2. The petitioner is engaged in transport business and owns several lorries which are all registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Taxes in respect of the said lorries are being paid by the petitioner under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. These vehicles are being used by the petitioner for transport of goods throughout the State of Karnataka and even beyond. The second-Respondent, Town Municipal Council, Annageri is constituted under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and comprises the Annageri town and areas i...
B.S. Deshpande Vs. M.R. Mathad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2826; 1996(3)KarLJ537
ORDERB.K. Sangalad, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 31.1.1990 passed in HRC No. 28/1989 by the III Additional District Judge, Belgaum, confirming the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Munsiff, Belgaum in HRC No. 347/1986 dated 16.12.1988. The ranks of the parties shall be followed as in the lower Court while narrating the facts of the case. The petitioner was the respondent and the respondent was the tenant in HRC No. 347/1986.2. The landlord is the owner of the petition premises bearing CTS No. 576/A1 situated at Math Galli, Belgaum. It was leased out to the tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. The landlord was working as Registrar, Karnataka Sangeetha Nruthya Academy (Department of kannada and Culture, Government of Karnataka). He retired from services on 31,1.1982. The certificate dated 4.9.1986 was issued by the Registrar, Karnataka Sangeetha Nruthya Academy, Bangalore to the show that he retired from the post he held. He does not possess any oth...
C.P. Mahadeva Setty Vs. Ningamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3206; 1996(6)KarLJ679
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of Code of Civil Procedure from the judgment and order of remand dated 15.2.1995 passed by Sri H.R. Sudheer, Learned Civil Judge and JMFC. Nanjangud in the district of Mysore.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for declaration of right, title and possession with respect to the suit property as well as for recovery of mesne profits from July 1983 till the date of delivery of vacant possession. The plaintiff's case as per the plaint allegations has been that plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property, having purchased the said property under the registered sale deed dated 11.1.1978 and thereafter he is in enjoyment of the property as owner thereof. Plaintiff's case is that plaintiff was in need of money. So under an agreement dated 10.6.1981, the plaintiff delivered the vacant possession of the suit property to the defendant and raised a loan of Rs. 1100. The plaintiff's case under the agreement ...
Sri Durga Lodge Vs. Director of Telecommunications
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR463; 1997(4)KarLJ350
Tirath Singh Thakur, J.1. Two demand notices claiming advance and differential amount of rental in connection with the telephone facility provided to the petitioner is what has been brought for challenge in this Writ Petition. The controversy arises in the background of the following facts.2. The petitioner is running a lodge in the name & style of Sri. Durga Lodge at Shimoga. The lodge comprises two separate buildings situate in a common compound. Some of the rooms in the lodge are provided with telephone facilities. Originally the petitioner had only one telephone connection, but, with increase in his business, it applied for a 5+20 PBX which was sanctioned in its favour in the year 1975. In the said PBX, 9 extensions were internal, while the remaining 11 being located in the second building were treated to be external extensions. On account of the increase in the rental rates effected in the year 1987, the petitioner applied for a separate PBX for the second building with 3+9 connec...
R.L. Meharwade Vs. Garuda Chit Trading and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2466; 1996(3)KarLJ235
ORDERM.R Saldanha, J.1. The facts of this C.R.P. are illustrative of how, on a super technical plea litigation that is virtually two decades old will still have to be reopened. In the year 1978, the immoveable property belonging to the Judgment-debtor was attached by the original Decree-holder and after a lapse of 3 years, on 14-8-81 the auction sale was held in which the auction purchaser who is the present, petitioner purchased the property. He paid the 25% price and in respect of the balance amount, the record indicates that he deposited the same around the end of October 1981 which was beyond the period of 15 days within which he was required to pay the balance price. Since certain valid reasons have been adduced by him, the Court accepted the balance payment. On 14-9-81, the present respondent-3 to this petition filed an application before the Trial Court under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C alleging that the sale was vitiated due to irregularity and fraud and that the sale should be set-...
S. Nagaraj Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC666; ILR1999KAR1102; 1996(6)KarLJ743
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. Constitutional validity of Section 93(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 113(5) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules is what is called in question in this Writ Petition. The challenge falls for consideration in the following circumstances.2. In terms of the provisions of Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an Agent or a Canavasser, dealing in the sale of tickets for travel by a public service vehicle or otherwise engaged soliciting customers for such vehicles, as also an agent engaged in the business of collecting, forwarding or distributing goods carried by goods carriage is required to obtain a licence from the Competent Authority who may grant the same subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the State Government. One of the conditions that can be prescribed for the grant of any such licence is the deposit of a security amount not exceeding Rs. 50,000/- in the case of an agent in the business of collecting, forwarding or dist...
Bapu Dada Patil Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3290; 1996(7)KarLJ215
S. Rajendra Babu, Ag. CJ.1. This appeal is directed against an order made by the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with the election process being commenced for electing an Adhyaksha to a gramapanchayat.2. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that one Smt. Prabhavathi had been elected as the Adhyaksha of the gramapanchayat. She belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The post of Adhyaksha is reserved for woman S.T. candidates in terms of Section 44 of the Karnataka Panchayatraj Act, 1993. The only ground urged in support of the challenge to the validity of the said provision is that it renders Section 49 otiose.3. The 6th respondent had been elected as the Adhyaksha of the said Panchayat she being the only woman ST. candidate. A no-confidence motion was brought against her on 24.11.1995. It is also stated that she submitted her resignation on 21.11.1995 and requested the second respondent to postpone the meeting to be hold on 24.11.1995. Separate proceedings have been ini...
Smt. Munichinnamma Vs. State Bank of Mysore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2906; 1996(3)KarLJ644
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel who represents the petitioner as also learned counsel who represents the bank and the contesting respondents. Undoubtedly, this civil revision petition throws up a set of facts that are very distressing. The petitioner's learned advocate points out to the court that she is an illiterate agriculturist and that in the year 1989, the respondent-bank pursuant to certain execution proceedings in relation to a decree in O.S. No. 202 of 1975 attached the properties consisting of Survey No. 41/1 measuring 3 acres and 14 guntas. Learned counsel points out that the petitioner was not a party to the O.S. No. 202 of 1975 and that, therefore, she had absolutely nothing to do with that decree. He points out that on the basis of the record that the execution pursuant to which the property was attached and sold was in relation to the decree passed in O.S. No. 202 of 1975 and that, therefore, the entire action was void in law. He further submits that when the ...
K.N. Subba Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR172
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. In this public interest litigation, the petitioner questions the size of the State Cabinet. According to him, Administrative Reforms Committee has suggested that the strength of the Cabinet should not exceed 10% of the total strength of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council; and as per the said suggestion, the strength of the Cabinet should not exceed 30. Instead of following the said guidelines, the second respondent who is the Chief Minister of the State, has formed a Cabinet with 45 ministers. The petitioner feels that such a large Cabinet is not required for running the affairs of the State, apart from casting a heavy financial burden on the State exchequer. He relied on a newspaper report to show the minimum expenditure of 45 Ministers will not be less than Rs. 30 crores per year. He contends that when citizens are suffering for want of civic amenities and the State is facing shortage of funds, having a jumbo sized Cabinet is against public in...
Dyamappa B. Talawar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR480
Chandrashekaraiah, J.1. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged notifications dated 20.3.89 and 9.4.1990 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 1894').2. The lands belonging to the petitioners in these Writ Petitions were proposed for acquisition by notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894, The Deputy Commissioner after holding enquiry submitted the Report as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act 1994 to the Government. On the basis of the said Report the Government issued a final notification dated 9.4.1990 under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1894. The said notifications are called in question in these Writ Petitions by the petitioners.3. This Court on an earlier occasion allowed some of the Writ Petitions holding that the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act is beyond the period of one year from the date of preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. Aggrie...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »