Karnataka Court August 1996 Judgments

Nathuram Govindram Vs. Subhash Tavanappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR468

M.B. Vishwanath, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. has been filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the III Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in R.A.No. 17/1994, dated 2.4.1996, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, in O.S.No. 135/1990 dated 8.2.1994.2. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is:The suit property is a non-residential building. Sudharam Devendrappa and his son Kiran kumar Sudharam were the owners of the suit property. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from the said owners under registered sale deed dated 27.7.1988 for Rs. 50,000/-. Before the plaintiff purchased the suit property, the suit property had been mortgaged by Sudharam Devendrappa in favour of Prakash under mortgage deed dated 30.4.1970 (Ex.P4). The Mortgage period expired on 30.4.1984 After the expiry of the mortgage period, the said Sudharam Devendrappa redeemed the mortgage and obtained registered reconve...

Siddaramappa Patil Vs. President, Bharathiya Vidhya Vardhaka Sangha an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997(1)KarLJ158

Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard Mrs. Asha Kumbargerimath, holding brief for Mr. I.G. Gachchinmath, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr. U. Abdul Khader, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. None appeared for respondent No. 1 nor any objection has been filed on their behalf.2. The applicant's case is that, applicant is an old aged person nearing 68 years and on account of grievous injuries and fractures of ribs, he has been compelled to confine to bed and restrict his movements and due to this physical infirmity, he is facing great inconvenience and hardship to attend the case M.V.C. No. 342 of 1992, pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangalore. Petitioner's case is that Mangalore is at a distance of more than 1,000 km. from Bidar, where the petitioner resides. Petitioner further alleges that the respondent No. 1 has got its office at Bidar and respondent No. 2, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has also got its Br...

J.S. Ramesh and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR13

ORDERG.C. Baruka, J.1.The writ petitioners in these cases are all individuals. They claimed to have purchased motor vehicles from outside the State of Karnataka for their personal use and have accordingly caused entry of such vehicles into various 'local areas' as defined under Clause (5) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 ( in short 'Act' only). They are aggrieved by the action of the respondents refusing to register their vehicles under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that the same is not permissible in view of Section 4E of the Act till taxes on entry of the said vehides are paid.2. According to the averments made in the Writ Petitions the petitioners do not fall in the category of 'dealer' as defined under Clause (4) of Section 2 of the Act and therefore keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of ARUN MANIKCHAND SHAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA : ILR1995KAR3080 , they are not liable to pay anytax on the entry of thei...

Purushottam Lal Singla and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioners claim to have purchased a property consisting of land and a factory building, situated at No. A-192, Industrial Estate, Peenya First Stage, Bangalore, from one U.R. Shenoy, under a sale deed executed in April 1996, registered on 12.4.1996 as document No. 162/1996-97 in the Office of the third respondent. According to the petitioners, third respondent (the Registering Officer) informed them that the document was undervalued and he intended to refer the sale deed for fixation of market value under Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('Act' for short) to the second respondent(Deputy Commissioner). In fact in the receipt (Annexure-B) given by the third respondent for having received the registration fee, the Third Respondent has stated that the matter was being referred under Section 45A of the Act.2. The Petitioners allege that the Factory shed situated in the property purchased by them in very old and is in a dilapidated condition and its v...

H.B. Guruchannabasavaiah Vs. District Magistrate, Tumkur and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1997CriLJ4371

ORDER1. An order dated 22nd of June 1990, passed by the District Magistrate, Tumkur confiscating SBBL Gun No. 2130 deposited with the Police by the father of the petitioner is what is under challenge in this writ petition. A mandamus directing the Respondents to return the Gun and renew the Licence issued in favour of the petitioner is also sought. 2. Petitioner's father on K. C. Basavaraj, deposited a SBBL Licensed Gun with the local Police. The reason given for making the deposit was physical weakness of the licensee due to old age. Some time later the petitioner herein made an application to the District Magistrate for release of the weapon in his favour as he had secured a licence from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Puttur, and was entitled to possess the same. It was also stated that the petitioner was the legal representative of his father Sri. K. C. Basavaraj. The application was considered by the District Magistrate under Section 21 of the Arms Act read with Rule 46 of the Arms ...

G.N. Vemareddy Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR67; 1997(1)KarLJ318

ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1.This petition is directed against the order, dated 16.9.1991, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D, passed by the second respondent confirming the order dated 22.7.1989, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C, passed by the third respondent declaring the sale of land measuring 3 acres 14 guntas in Survey No. 11 of Gummareddypura village, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, made by one Gopalappa in favour of the petitioner as null and void and further directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the said land to the said Gopalappa (deceased 4th respondent).2. The brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition, are these:Land measuring 2 acres in Survey No. 11 of Gummareddypura village, Srinivasapura Talik, Kolar District, was granted to the deceased 4th respondent - one Gopalappa, by means of order dated 21.9.1954 with a condition that the said land should not be alienated by the grantee for a ...

Doulatraj Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ57

ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J 1. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Special Deputy Commissioner v Narayanappa, the petitioner has challenged the order of respondent 2, dated 5-3-1990 by which levy of conversion fine has been imposed upon him while deciding his application in terms of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1965, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It is contended that the amendment made in Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act vide Act No. 2 of 1991 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Alternatively it is submitted that as the Amending Act has not validated the earlier actions taken under the unamended Section 95 of the Act, the same do not affect rights of the petitioner.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petition are that, the petitioner who is the owner of land measuring 1 acre in Block No. 333/2 of Bhairad...

K.B. Nagendra and anr. Vs. S.P. Raghunath and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR2701; 1996(6)KarLJ284

R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Promotion of the appellant as Chief Manager vide order dated 4.7.1995 was challenged in the Writ Petition filed by Sri S.P. Raghunath-respondent, mainly on the grounds of violation of the Service Rule applicable, ignoring his seniority and non-consideration of the case. The Writ Petition was allowed by quashing the impugned order giving the employer-Corporation liberty to make fresh order of promotion in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment. It is submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge being contrary to the relevant Rules was liable to be set-aside. It is contended that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that the Committee which approved promotion was not properly constituted. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge, did not properly appreciate the effect of Rule 13 of the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., (Cadre & Recruitment) Rules (hereinafter refe...

i.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Ii Additional Labour Court and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (1997)ILLJ589Kant

ORDER1. The petitioner challenges an interim order passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, in I.D. No. 117/90 dated October 10, 1995 - Annexure - A, by which an interim relief has been granted to the worker at the rate of his last drawn salary per month from August 2, 1995.2. When the petition came up for preliminary hearing, it has been taken up for final disposal by the consent of the parties.3. The 2nd respondent was dismissed from service by the petitioner after holding enquiry and an application under Section 10(4)(A) was is filed by the 2nd respondent stating his dismissal based on enquiry is bad in law. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry against the 2nd respondent is not fair by an order dated August 2, 1995. The 2nd respondent has filed an application on May 29, 1990 seeking for an interim relief. The petitioner filed objection petitions stating that the petition is vague and it is not maintainable. However, the Labour Court taking note of the fact tha...

M. Narasimhamurthy and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1996KAR3403; 1996(7)KarLJ496

ORDERS. Venkataraman, J.1. The short point that has arisen for consideration is as to whether an appeal against an order Under Rule 4 of Order 47 CPC granting an application for review can be maintained even after the disposal of the original suit in which that order was passed.2. In a suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants a question regarding the valuation of the suit for purposes of Court fee and about the sufficiency of the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs had arisen for consideration. The plaintiffs amended the prayer column and the lower Court passed an order on 31.7.95 to the effect that the valuation was proper and the Court fee paid was sufficient. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant filed an application for review of that order under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and 151 CPC. The Court allowed that application on 30.9.1995 and reviewing the earlier order passed by it called upon the plaintiffs to furnish the correct market value of the suit property and to pay the Court ...