Karnataka Court November 1998 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.
Padmavathi Vs. Ramakrishna Shetty and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ462
ORDER1. These appeals are from the judgment and decree dated 14th July, 1987 delivered by (Sri M. Shama Bhat) the II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore, in Original Suit No. 26 of 1979 dismissing the plaintiffs claim for partition as well as the claim of the first defendant for partition and separate possession of their respective shares.2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the plaintiff Padmavathi filed a suit along with her husband K. Prabhakar Rai (deceased) for division of plaint 'A' to 'D' schedule properties into three equal shares and for allotment of one such share to her in the aforesaid property. The plaintiffs have also sought for relief for accounting the income of mesne profits of the schedule properties with effect from 25-11-1978 till the delivery of the share to them.3. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to mention the relationship inter se between the parties.Ramanna Shetty and his wife Poovakka ShedthiPadmavathiYeshoda R. ShettyRamakrishna She...
Devaraj Dhanram Vs. M/S. Firebricks and Potteries Private Limited, Ban ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas361(Kar); 1999(2)KarLJ301
ORDER1. A seemingly innocuous application filed in Company Petition No. 77 of 1989 for permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to re institute it has generated a legal controversy of considerable importance. At first blush, it would seem that a litigant has the unfettered right to withdraw a proceeding and if the law permits reinstitution in the same or some other form provided the exercise is not vitiated by mala fides but the reason why the dispute has snowballed is because of the fact that some of the Courts have taken the view that if a Company Petition of this type is withdrawn that there would be a bar to incorporating the grounds or material from the petition that has been withdrawn in a subsequent proceeding which may be maintainable on additional grounds. The learned Counsels who represent the applicant have pointed out to me that it is out of abundant caution that the liberty of this Court has been sought and briefly stated, the reasons stated by them are that the pe...
Appalal Mohammed Desai Vs. ZiyauddIn Isaq Desai and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ664
ORDER1. This regular second appeal preferred by the plaintiff arises out of Execution Petition No. 75 of 1982 on the file of Additional Munsiff and JMFC, Chikodi. This execution petition was to execute the partition decree granted in O.S. No. 174 of 1953 which was confirmed in R.A. No. 416 of 1954. Therefore, the decree of O.S. No. 174 of 1953 is yet to be executed and the same is pending for 45 years as on date. It is quite unfortunate that such position is rendered by the fight between the parties and the delay has occurred in Courts.2. The suit for partition by one Appalal Mohammed Desai, against his brothers ended in a decree. The sons and daughters of deceased Isaqwallad Ahamad Desai have presented the execution petition for partition to direct the papers to be sent to Deputy Commissioner for effecting the partition under Section 54 of the CPC. It was claimed that the decree-holder was entitled for 1/4 share and if that be the legal position and if the partition in the suit proper...
Hariom Firestock Limited Vs. Sunjal Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas249(Kar)
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. This is a proceeding under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the petitioners contend that the respondent-company is liable to be wound up, the principal ground being that a substantial amount of money that was claimed from the respondents is outstanding, the respondents having failed to pay it should be deemed to have become commercially insolvent and, therefore, disqualified from continuing to do business. The facts are hardly material because the two learned counsel who have argued the case with a high degree of skill and have been of considerable assistance to me, have basically proceeded on points of law. The petitioners claim that in the year 1987, they had advanced a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 to the respondent-company and that the amount being outstanding, they were required to institute a recovery suit in the civil court at Ahmedabad, since the claim was getting time-barred. According to them, the fact that the respondents have not responded to the statu...
M/S. Shimoga Steels Limited, Mysore Vs. the Karnataka Electricity Boar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ1
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Regulation 30.05 of Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulation of 1988 reads as:'Levy of interest.--In case of any belated payment, simple interest will be levied at the rate of 2% per month or part thereof from the expiry of due date, subject to a minimum of Re. 1/- for L.T. installations and Rs. 100/- for H.T. installations'.The interpretation of words 'part thereof is the subject of controversy requiring authoritative pronouncement. Such words have been interpreted by the respondent-Board and upheld by the learned Single Judge to mean 'that not only shall the Board be entitled to the interests at the rate of 2% for every completed month of delay but even for a delay of only part of a month also the interest chargeable would be 2%. Stated differently the Board is entitled to claim Rs. 2/- per every Rs. 100/- unpaid for each month of delay and delay of only a month also'.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has, however, submitted that the words 'part the...
Kerala Transport Company, Bangalore Vs. Smt. Vasu Daljith Kaur Amarjee ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ239
ORDER1. The plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit in S.C. No. 4792 of 1995 on the file of the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH 14) to recover a sum of Rs. 8,990/- from the respondent on the allegation that the petitioner had entrusted certain quantity of materials to be transported and delivered to its customer viz., M/s. Asian Paints at Bombay. While the goods were delivered to the consignee at Bombay, some of the items were found to be damaged during transit as a result of which the materials had become useless. The consignee rejected the goods and claimed Rs. 13,990/- being the value of the damaged goods and the same was paid to the Asian Paints by the petitioner. After adjusting the freight charges, the petitioner brought a suit for a sum of Rs. 8,990/- being the difference amount payable by the respondent towards the loss or damage caused to the petitioner. 2. The respondent filed written statement contending among other things that the Small Causes Co...
Miss Shabana Bano Vs. the Secretary, Karnataka Secondary Education Exa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR342; 1999(1)KarLJ591
ORDER1. Selection of candidates for teachers training courses is regulated by what are known as Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Teachers Certificate Higher Course and Bachelor of Education Course (B.Ed.), 1996. Rule 3 of the said rules prescribes the conditions of eligibility and stipulates that no person shall be eligible for admission under the said rules unless he is a citizen of India and has for admission to Teachers Certificate Higher Course, passed the II Year PUC or an equivalent examination with a minimum of 50% marks in the general merit candidates or 45% in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and physically handicapped candidates. Rule 4 provides that there shall be two categories of seats viz., 'Government Seats' and 'other seats'. While Government seats have to be filled up by Karnataka candidates and other candidates specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 7, the 'other seats' left to the Managements have...
K.M. Maheshwara Swami Vs. the Governor and Chancellor and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-06-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR765; 1999(2)KarLJ368
ORDER1. The petitioner was elected to the Senate of the Gulbarga University from what is known as 'Other Graduates Constituency' on 18th of August, 1995. That Office he was to hold for a period of three years reckoned from the date the Senate was reconstituted. The Senate having been reconstituted on 17th October, 1995, the petitioner could hold officeas its member only upto 17th October, 1998. During this period the petitioner had been elected as a member of the Syndicate of the University on 23rd of November, [1985]. This term was also, in the ordinary course, to be for a period of 3 years from the date the Syndicate was reconstituted. The petitioner's grievance now is that since the Syndicate was reconstituted on 12th of January, 1996, his term as a member of the Syndicate would be counted from the said date entitling him to continue in office as member of the Syndicate till 12th January, 1999. The respondents, it is alleged have excluded him from the meetings of the Syndicate as th...
Mahiboobsab Vs. Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Kerur, Badami T ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4300; 2000(1)KarLJ314
ORDER1. The petitioner in this petition claims to be the owner of property bearing No. 171/2 of Kerur Village, Badami Taluk, Bijapur District. In this petition, he has called in question the correctness of the order dated 31st July, 1992, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-J passed by the 2nd respondent. A few facts which are not in serious dispute that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as follows:2. On the application filed by the petitioner for grant of licence to put up a building in the property referred to above, the 1st respondent had granted a licence to the petitioner on 1st June, 1992, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E. It appears that the Headmaster of a school situated adjacent to the property, raised an objection and moved the 2nd respondent to nullify the resolution passed by the 1st respondent granting licence to the petitioner to put up the building. On the said objection raised by the Headmaster of the school, the 2...
i.P. Subbaiah Vs. S.M. Sahayam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1998
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1060; 2001(3)KarLJ392
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. The revision petitioner in O.S. No. 5479 of 1995 has questioned the order of the Trial Court directing him to accept a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the respondent towards outstanding legal professional charges and to handover the file to the party. It is represented that he has accepted the said amount and handed over the file to the party. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon a decision in Damodardas Agarwal and Others v R. Badrilal and Others, to direct the Trial Court to hold the summary enquiry and to determine what is the fee payable to him by the respondent. It is held in the above said decision that a 'leave of the Court is necessary to terminate the appointment of the Advocate' in a case if the Advocate has not given his consent in the Court as to pass appropriate order while granting leave to the client to determine the appointment of the Advocate. It is further held in the same decision that 'there is practice in the High Court whereu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »