Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1998)DMC318; ILR1997KAR3144; 1997(4)KarLJ735
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The present appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 29.1.1994 passed by the Family Court at Bangalore in OS 64/90 whereunder it has been held that the application filed by the appellant for maintenance cannot be entertained at Bangalore for want of jurisdiction.2. It is not in dispute that, the appellant and respondents were married to each other on 25.12.1975 at Bangalore. Unfortunately, the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce in MC 44/94 passed by the Civil Judge, Mysore. Since in the said divorce proceedings the appellant had not claimed any maintenance, therefore, no. decree was passed to that effect.3. Subsequently, the appellant along with her two minor daughters filed application before the Family Court at Bangalore claiming maintenance at Rs. 2,000/- p.m. from the date of institution of the suit and create a charge on the schedule properties with ancillary reliefs. But, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ199
ORDER1. Relying upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in para 478 of its judgment in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association Union of India and Another and on the basis of the newspaper report published in 'The Hindu' daily of Bangalore Edition, dated 30th August, 1997, the petitioner has filed this public interest litigation with prayer for direction to the 1st respondent for not issuing the warrant of appointment, appointing the 4th respondent as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on the recommendations of the 2nd respondent. We are satisfied that as no fundamental or legal right of any citizen has been infringed, the petition is not maintainable. This petition is also not entertainable by this Court as no part of the cause of action has accrued to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Supreme Court in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association's case, supra, has categorically held that the recommendations made by the Chief Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR4031
T.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This is again one of the unfortunate way of disposing of cases by the subordinate Courts despite non-filing written statement on behalf of the defendant.2. The facts are simple. The suit was filed for recovery of money by the plaintiff. The defendant remained exparte. The plaintiff examined himself and marked documents. If really the trial Court has got any doubt regarding the possession of money lenders licence as required under a particular money lender Act, it should have given an opportunity to the plaintiff to produce the licence, especially when the plaintiff asserted that he had a licence. Without giving an opportunity and in a very hurried and haphazard fashion, the Trial Court has chosen to dismiss the suit.3. The less said about the Appellate Court is better. Before confirming the decree of the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court did not even permit the appellant to file the licence which he cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR992
ORDERHarinath Tilhari, J.1. The Writ Petition No. 18666 of 93, involves same question of law which is in relation to the Writ Petition No. 34762 of 95 and other connected Writ Petitions listed for hearing, as such, this Writ Petition has also been heard along with those writ petitions and all these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by one common order.2. The facts of the cases in the nutshell are that in all these cases, in proceeding under Section 5 of Act No. 2 of 79, the Assistant Commissioners have ordered resumption of the granted land as mentioned and described in the petitions and the orders and the appeals filed by the transferees - petitioners have been dismissed and disposed of by the Deputy Commissioners concerned affirming the orders of resumption and restoration of the land to the grantees or their heirs.3. The contention on behalf of the petitioners has been made to the effect by Sri Mohandas N. Hegde as well as by Sri Sripathy and by Sri R.M. Nawaz, holding brief for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2851; 1998(1)KarLJ548
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for respondent 3.2. In this writ petition, the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Yalburga Taluk, Raichur District dated 16-1-1992, passed in Case No. LR/Inam/14/90-91 has been challenged by the petitioners.3. As per the impugned order, the Form 1 filed by the present petitioners claiming occupancy rights in respect of Survey No. 5 measuring 19 acres 35 guntas situated at Gule Village was rejected.4. Aggrieved by the above order, the present petitioners have filed this writ petition.5. The Land Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the occupancy rights in respect of the said land had been granted to respondent 3 on 24-7-1984 in Case No. LR/Inam/84-85/120.6. The land in question is a service inam land. It is not disputed that the petitioners have also made their application in Form 1 within the extended time.7. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ128
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Land measuring 5 acres 39 guntas in Survey No. 25 of Kotanur D. Village owned by the appellant was proposed to be acquired for the purposes of the Karnataka Housing Board vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') published in the Karnataka Gazette on 29-10-1987. Objections filed by the appellant were rejected and final notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued which was published in the Gazette on 9-6-1988. It was submitted that as the Assistant Commissioner had failed to consider the objections filed by the appellant before submission of his report in terms of Section 5-A of the Act, the final notification issued by the respondents was liable to be quashed. It was submitted that the appellant raised other objections to the acquisition on the ground that the land in question had earlier sought to be acquired in the year 1982 by the City Improvement Trust Board and the same was dropped on the represent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1445
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madikeri passed in Crl. A. No. 50 of 1995 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.2. The facts in brief are as follows : Forest Squad attached to D.F.O. Madikeri on receiving credible information on 31-12-1994 visited Jani Thangavva's estate at Maragodu, Hosakeri village and found a lorry bearing Reg. No. KL-7A-6084 parked there covered with tarpaulin. They searched the lorry and found 15 rose wood logs hidden under the paddy husk bags. They were seized under a mahazar as the driver or owner of the lorry failed to produce necessary licence. The property and the lorry were produced before the Authorised officer for initiating confiscation proceedings. The authorised officer upon enquiry, passed the order dt. 4-10-1995 confiscating the property and the vehicle. The order of the Authorised officer was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in appeal. It was contented that the authorised office...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ977; AIR1998Kant274; ILR1998KAR1488; 1998(4)KarLJ733
1. This appeal preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the K.S.R.T.C. has thrown up for determination a rather unusual and exceptional situation. Briefly stated, the point of law that is required to be set at rest is the question as to whether in the absence of an appeal or cross objections filed by the claimants in a compensation claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act, if the circumstances warrant and justify, whether the appeal Court would be within its right to enhance the compensation that was originally awarded. Issues can never arise in a vacuum and therefore, the brief facts that have given rise to this situation are material.2. On 25-10-85 at about 8.15 a.m. the B.T.S. bus bearing No. M.Y.F. 8124 was being driven along Lavelle Road and the deceased who was a 13 year old school boy studying in the Baldwin School was riding a bicycle on the same road on his way to school. The bus was alleged to have been driven rashly and negligently a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR916
ORDER XLI RULE 22. Claim of the plaintiff for 12 Gunthas out of total 20 Gunthas, had been decreed by the Trial Court. In Appeal filed by the plaintiff, even though the defendant had not filed any cross objections, instead of just dismissing the first Appeal. The Lower Appellate went to the extent of dismissing the entire suit. HELD -- The lower Appellate Court has acted illegally and arbitrarily and disposal of the Appeal in such cavalier fashion deserves condemnation. The disposal of the first Appeal by the First Appellate Court deserve condemnation. When there is no appeal by the defendant, question of grant of the decree inrespect of 12 guntas, the Appellate Court has no power to dismiss the suit, Order 41 Rule 22 speaks about the objection the respondent may raise as if he had preferred separate appeal. This is how Order 41 Rule 22 reads:'Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate Appeal:- Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)145CTR(Kar)115; [1998]230ITR160(KAR); [1998]230ITR160(Karn)
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The present references pertain to asst. yrs. 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. The assessee is a partnership firm. It had paid salary to one of the partners for the services rendered by him. The said partner had entered into the partnership as representing his HUF. The payment of salary was disallowed under s. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). On appeal, the decision of the AO was reversed. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, relying on the judgment of this Court in CIT vs . Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works : [1992]193ITR77(KAR) : TC 33R.306 affirmed the claim of the assessee. On the said facts, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion in these two cases : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that salary paid by the firm to a person who was a partner in a representative capacity was not disallowable under s. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. We have ...
Tag this Judgment!