Karnataka Court July 1997 Judgments

Wg. Cdr. Y. Sadashiva Hegde and Others Vs. Bangalore City Corporation, ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ532

Acts/Rules/Orders:City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 - Sections 29 and 43;Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 - Section 69;Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 11 and 40;Allotment of Sites Rules - Rule 19;Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act;Karnataka Municipalities ActCases Referred:Pee Kay Constructions and Another v. K. Chandrashekhara Hegde and Others, 1988(3) Kar. L.J. 543, ILR 1989 Kar. 241;Sachidanand Pandey and Another v. State of West Bengal and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1109;B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1059;Dattatreya and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. Nos. 17289 and 17290 of 1987, DD: 8-7-1988JUDGEMENTS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The appellants in these appeals filed writ petitions seeking for a declaration that the plan issued by the first respondent to the respective respondents who are owners of sites in the 5th Main Road, Defence Colony, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, as illegal and void. Each of the appellan...

Deepam Silk International Vs. Deepam Silks

Court: Karnataka

A.M. Farooq, J.1. These appeals are filed against the common order dated 22/2/1997 on IA I in OS 132/96 on the file of the learned First Addl. District Judge, Mysore. Both the plaintiff and defendant have filed appeals questioning the impugned order. 2. The plaintiff M/s. Deepam International, a registered partnership firm from Bangalore filed a suit before the trial Court at Mysore. The case of the plaintiff was that it is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in the sale of Silk sarees and textile piece goods under the brand name 'Deepam' and it has opened a show-room at M. G. Road, Bangalore and carrying on its business since 1981. It was stated that its trading style Deepam has become popular all over India and the plaintiff has been receiving orders from All over India for supply of silk sarees and textile materials. Due to intrinsic quality and reputation built over the number of years, silk sarees and textile pieces sold by it under their brand name Deepam have beco...

Smt. Lakshmikanthamma and Others Vs. M/S. Saree Mandir, Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1997KAR3210; 1998(2)KarLJ127

ORDER1. The petitioners, in this revision petition, are the owners of premises bearing No. 193, Gowramma Hostel Lane, Chickpet, Bangalore-560053. The said premises consists of the ground floor and the first floor. The subject-matter of dispute in this petition relates to the ground floor of the said premises (hereinafter referred to as 'petition schedule premises').2. This petition is directed against the order dated 29th of October, 1992 made in H.R.C. No. 1162 of 1982 passed by the Court of XIX Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for eviction of the respondent.3. The petitioners filed eviction petition against the respondent under Section 21(1)(h), (p) and (o) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 20th of April, 1982. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the eviction petition, was that they require the petition schedule premises reasonably and for, bona fide use and occupation, to wit,...

Vishnu Upendra Shet Govekar Vs. Sheshagiri Jivottam Prabhu Desai Borus ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR1610

ORDER1. The defendant is the appellant herein.2. The suit for recovery of money in Original Suit No. 71 of 1981 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Karwar was decreed on 21-9-1984. On appeal in Regular Appeal No. 70 of 1984, the learned Civil Judge, Karwar, dismissed the same on 12-11-1986 confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence this second appeal by the defendant.3. The suit for recovery of Rs. 9,315/- wherein Rs. 6,000/- is the principal and Rs. 3,315/- as the interest was instituted on the basis of the promissory note. It was alleged in the plaint 'The families of the plaintiff and the defendant knew each other since their forefathers and they had business transactions between them and were having thick friendly relationship with each other. In about 1974, for his plan of starting a beaten rice and floor mill at Majali Village, the defendant approached the plaintiff and offered to make the plaintiff a partner on the plaintiff investing an amount of Rs. 6,000/-. ...

Mahant Oil Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and Anoth ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1998]108STC128(Kar)

ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. Constitutional validity of the Karnataka Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Karnataka Act No. 8 of 1989) is under challenge in this writ petition. By the said Act, apart from amending the provisions of the section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, an explanation to the same has been added, retrospectively with effect from the first of April, 1970. 2. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, engaged in extraction of oils from oil cakes and rice bran. For purposes of carrying on the said activity, the petitioner purchases firewood for use as fuel. Purchases so made by the petitioner for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84 were brought to tax under section 6 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and in the meantime, the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Thomas Stephen & Co. Ltd. : 1988(34)ELT412(SC) while considering an analogous provision contained in the ...

Uco Bank, Khade Bazaar, Belgaum Vs. Vasanthlala Kewaldas Shah

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR3368; 1998(6)KarLJ705

1. The plaintiff-Bank is the appellant. The suit for recovery of money due in respect of the facilities granted by the Bank in Original Suit No. 332 of 1980, was dismissed by the III Additional Munsiff, Belgaum and such dismissal was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Regular Appeal No. 81 of 1983 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Belgaum on 8-9-1986. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court.2. It is rather strange but not surprising that in an ex parte proceeding both the Courts below have concurrently thought they can dismiss the suit of the plaintiff-Bank. It is equally unfortunate that the Courts were not aware either the Banking Regulations Act or principles of Banking. Under the principles of Banking, the suit filed on an account has to be taken as the basis for any claim. In fact, Sections 3 and 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 is clear that the statements given by the Bank certified to be true under Section 2 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act shall be taken as t...

B. Narayan Vs. the General Manager, Bangalore Telephones, Bangalore an ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1998Kant278; ILR1997KAR2556; 1998(2)KarLJ109

ORDER1. Petitioner is the subscriber in regard to telephone bearing No. 576117 (Bangalore). The telephone was installed on 25-6-1973 and STD facility was barred on 23-7-1982. A bill dated 11-10-1989 (Annexure-L) relating to the period 25-7-1989 to 25-9-1989, was served on the petitioner for Rs. 16,648/-. Petitioner gave a complaint that the bill was excessive. Pending investigation into the said complaint, a provisional bill was issued for Rs. 2,204/- taking into account his earlier bills,keeping the balance of Rs. 14,444/- in abeyance.The Department thereafter sent a letter dated 17-1-1990 informing the petitioner that their investigation showed that there was no malfunctioning of the meter or fault in the system leading to erroneous metering; and that even though telephone was STD barred, repeated attempts made from the petitioner's telephone to get STD had succeeded on quite a few occasions and therefore, the bill was in order. Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed W.P. No. 15332 of 19...

Nucor Wires Limited, Bangalore and Others Vs. Hmt (international) Limi ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)340; [1998]91CompCas850(Kar); ILR1997KAR3239

ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether it was permissible to launch a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against all the Directors of the Company notwithstanding the nomination made by the Company. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced for and against the contention of the petitioners and respondent it is necessary to succinctly refer to the facts of the case. 2. The respondent lodged a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., against these petitioners alleging that on 22-2-1996, A-2 executed an agreement on behalf of A-1. In connection with the transaction, the 1st petitioner A-1 on behalf of all the accused issued in favour of the complainant a cheque dated 31-10-1996 bearing No. 865657 drawn on Canara Bank, Industrial Finance Branch, Bangalore, for a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- lakhs in part payment of the advance received in that transaction. Subsequently, on 11-11-1996 after informing the petitioners...

The Registrar, Manipal Academy of Higher Education (Deemed University) ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR2520; 1999(4)KarLJ389

R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Aggrieved by the selection made to the Postgraduate Medical Courses in the appellant-institution, the writ petitioners who were separately considered in the K.M.C. Category, prayed for issuance of directions to the appellant to admit them to the postgraduate medical courses on the basis of their ranking in the All India Medical Postgraduate Entrance Test (MEDPET), conducted by the appellant. They prayed, as an interim measure, that effect be not given to the selection to the postgraduate courses made on 4th August, 1996 in respect of 25% quota earmarked for Ex-KMC graduates. Writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 27-1-1997 directing the appellant to admit the writ petitioners in the coming academic session 1997-98 to the postgraduate courses from amongst 25% seats reserved in the NRI category subject to the condition that the fee structure and other conditions applicable to the writ petitioners shall be those prescribed for candi...

Smt. Pushpa Vs. N.R. Ramachandran and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ703

1. The plaintiff is the appellant. Her suit for declaration and injunction in Original Suit No. 428 of 1974 was decreed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, on 25-10-1978. On appeal in Regular Appeal No. 836 of 1980, the learned 10th Additional Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on 27-11-1986. Hence, the second appeal.2. The plaintiff claimed that she purchased the going concern from one K. Venkataraman on 27-6-1970 and the said Venkataraman was a tenant under the defendants. The plaintiff further claimed that by virtue of her purchase, she became the owner and the rent paid by her has been accepted by the defendant. Consequently, she said that she cannot be evicted except in accordance with law. She also prayed for injunction restraining the second defendant from constructing a wall or any other structure on the suit schedule land. The defendants denied the tenancy of the appellant and contended that she never attor...