Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. Writ Petition No. 15697 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner-Company seeking to quash Annexure-D dated 25-4-1994 issued by the first respondent. Annexure-D is the intimation of allotment by the Karnataka Housing Board to one of the allottees.2. Writ Petition No. 14049 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner-Company seeking to quash Annexure-D which was also an intimation of allotment by the Karnataka Housing Board to one of the allottees.3. Writ Petition Nos. 826 to 830 of 1997 were filed by the petitioner-Company seeking to quash Annexures E-1 to E-5 all dated 21-5-1994. Annexures E-l to E-5 are sale deeds executed by the Karnataka Housing Board in favour of respondents 3 to 7.4. In all these writ petitions, the common question that arises for consideration is whether the Karnataka Housing Board is competent to sell the tenements built by the Karnataka Housing Board on a land belonging to the petitioner-Company to the workman of the petitioner-Company. The second question that aris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3281
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the appellant's learned Advocate and the learned Advocate who represents the first respondent - Town Municipal Council, Kolar. The 2nd respondent though served has not appeared.2. The appellant is the original plaintiff and his learned Counsel points out to me that the suit was presented before the Trial Court praying for a composite relief against both the defendants. At the hearing, one of the issues that came up for consideration was the question as to whether the first defendant being the Town Municipal Council, the service of the statutory notice was a mandatory requirement. The Court upheld this contention and under normal circumstances ought to have rejected the plaint on this ground alone but instead of that, the Court proceeded to decide the entire case on merits and recorded findings under all the various issues. The Court dismissed the suit and this order came to be confirmed by the appeal Court. The appeal Court has also recorded a clear fin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3402; 1998(1)KarLJ269
ORDER1. The petitioner (respondent 2 in the Trial Court) has filed this revision petition against an order passed by the learned Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Kundagol, in an election petition E.P. No. 1 of 1994, on LA. No. I, filed by the respondents 1 and 2 (petitioners in the Trial Court) allowing the said application for amendment of the election petition impleading additional parties.2. The respondents 1 and 2 challenged the election of the petitioner as a successful candidate in the election held on 29-12-1993 for Betadur Grama Panchayat for Ward No. 2 on certain grounds and filed the election petition 1 of 1994. The revision petitioner-respondent 2 in his objections statement took up a plea amongst other grounds that the petitioners have not impleaded all the contesting candidates as respondents in theelection petition as required under Section 15, clause (2)(a) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (here in afterwards referred to as 'the Act'), and therefore the election petition is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1998]92CompCas782(Kar); ILR1998KAR1151; 1998(6)KarLJ57
ORDER1. Third respondent-bank filed OA No. 88 of 1995 before the second respondent-Tribunal against the first and second petitioners herein (borrower and Guarantor respectively) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('Act' for short). The reliefs claimed in the said original application are.-1.Directing petitioners herein personally to pay the amounts mentioned in Schedule 'C' to the application along with interest at 19.75% per annum compounded quarterly; 2.Directing sale of mortgaged immoveable property described in 'B' schedule as to the application; and3.Award costs of the proceedings including the fee paid to the Tribunal and the Advocates. 2. In Schedule 'C' to the original application, the bank claimed two amounts i.e., a sum of Rs. 4,28,881.20 in regard to Account No. PSL/Gen. 5/1989 and a sum of Rs. 7,68,386/- due in regard to Account No. OSL/ML/155/89. The total amount claimed is Rs. 11,97,267.20.3. The petitioners on ente...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3432; 1998(1)KarLJ349
ORDER1. The petitioner has preferred this civil revision petition against the order dated 24-11-1990, passed by the Court of the Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in S.C. No. 4809 of 1987 who has allowed I.A.VI, holding that the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court.2. The petitioner filed the above stated suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 8,857/- being the amount to be paid by the respondents in respect of the chit transaction. The first respondent is the subscriber to the chit conducted by the petitioner. The other respondents are the sureties for the first respondent. The chit in question commenced on 16-5-1980 consisting of 111 monthly instalments, the instalment being Rs.100/-. The first respondent was the successful bidder in thechit auction held on 16-7-1980. He defaulted to pay the 49th instalment. During the pendency, the first defendant filed I.A.VI stating that in view of Section 64(1) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 the suit is not maintainable as such the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3838; 1998(4)KarLJ643
1. The challenge in this second appeal is to the gift deed said to be executed by one Mohiddinsab in favour of his wife Mahaboobi in lieu of mahr and on the basis of which gift deed property was claimed by the plaintiff. The defendants challenged the right of the plaintiff under the sale deed on the ground that his vendor, that is, her own mother, do not have a right to sell the property.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The suit schedule house originally belonged to Mohiddinsab and he died in the year 1965, leaving behind him his widow Mahaboobi and five daughters who are defendants 1 to 5 in the suit. The defendants 6 and 7 are the brother's sons of deceased Mohiddinsab. The plaintiff is the husband of the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff contends that during the life time of Mohiddinsab, he gave the suit schedule house to Mahaboobi in lieu of mahr and that she later sold it to him under a registered sale deed. It is thus that the plaintiff claims title to the suit schedule propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ352
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.2. In this petition, the order dated 13-1-1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Harihar in case No. LRM. TC. 75/74-75 has been challenged. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 14-8-1981. passed in case No. LRM. TC. 986/79-80 by the Land Tribunal.3. As per order dated 13-1-1977 (Annexure-C) the Tribunal has ordered that Form 7 claiming occupancy rights in respect of 11 acres 27 guntas in Survey No. 26 situated in Sherapura Village, Harihar Taluk, should be filed by the petitioner.4. As per order dated 14-8-1981 (Annexure-K) the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of 11 acres 27 guntas in Survey No. 26 to respondent 3-Nanjundappa and respondent 4-Revanappa on the basis of Form 7 filed by respondent 3 and respondent 4 (Annexure-H). It is seen that the Form 7 has been filed by respondent 3 and respondent 4 on 27-10-1980. Prima facie the Form 7 filed by responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3251; 1998(1)KarLJ354
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.2. This petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Jamkhandi, District Bijapur in Karnataka Land Reforms SR.11 and 34 (Naganur), dated 21-4-1989.3. The petitioner and respondent 4 are owners of land bearing Sy. No. 3/4 measuring 8 acres 25 guntas of Naganur village in Jamkhandi Taluk, Bijapur District. As per the contentions of the petitioner, the land is under personal cultivation by him on behalf of respondent 4. The Land Tribunal, Jamkhandi by its order dated 21-4-1989 granted occupancy rights in favour of respondent 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bijapur in L.R.A. No.107 of 1989. During the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, respondent 2 abolished the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the petition has been treated as writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2073
Harinath Tilhari, J.1.Heard the Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company Sri M. Sowri Raju.2. The only point in this appeal that has been urged is limited to the extent of liability of the Insurance Company, in the matter of compensation awarded. As regard the finding of facts, it has not been challenged nor the quantum of compensation has been challenged. Sri Sowri Raju contended that the question of extent of Companies liability has not been examined. Learned Counsel contended that company does not dispute its liability to the extent which is prescribed under the Act. Learned Counsel contended that the fastening of liability for entire amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 68,000/- on the Company is illegal. Learned Counsel contended that is liability is only to the extent of 50,000 + interest and the costs. He invited my attention to Sub-section (2), Clause (b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as the occurrence in this case had taken place on 23.11.1985, that is prior to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2159
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1. The legal representatives of the second defendant are the appellants. The suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land, prohibiting them from selling the crops or in the alternative for possession was partly decreed by the Trial Court by which injunction restraining the plaintiff's enjoyment of 14 guntas of land against D1 alone was granted. Alternative relief for possession was rejected. On Appeal again by the plaintiffs, the Appellate Court granted decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and the cross-objections preferred by the L.R.s of D2 was rejected. Hence, this regular second appeal.2. The plaintiffs' claim was that they are the owners of the land in S.No.16/2/3 measuring 2 acres 10 guntas. The plaintiffs predecessors had mortgaged this land with possession for Rs. 50/-, to the father of the first defendant in the year 1905. The document was not registered. The second defe...
Tag this Judgment!