Karnataka Court April 1998 Judgments
N.K. Ramachandra Rao Vs. G. Ganpath Rao and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ272
ORDER1. The petitioner is admittedly getting Rs. 3,000/- per month, though as pension, in my opinion he cannot be considered as an indigent person. Even his affidavit discloses that the articles in his possession is more than Rs. 15,000/- i.e., more than what is prescribed under Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. The only submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that Rs. 3,000/- is not much within the meaning of Section 60, Civil Procedure Code and consequently it should he held that the petitioner is an indigent person. I do not agree. It is not that the Court is wanting to attach any money and the petitioner wants the benefit of the litigation and when he chooses the benefit the Courts are not here to confer the benefit when admittedly he is not an indigent person. A person who is drawing Rs. 3,000/- in a month, in any form whatsoever cannot be considered as an indigent person and the exemption to Court fee to suit can be given only to the person who can be ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Farooque Abdul Aziz Kothiwala Vs. Abdul Rashid Hassansab Muja ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ174
M.B. Vishwanath, J. 1. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant have been heard. The respondent since deceased by his L.Rs. have been served with notices, but they have remained absent. 2. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, this Court acting under Order 1, Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure requested the young Advocate Sri S. Srinivas Raghawan, to assist the Court. 3. At the outset, it should be stated that the learned Advocate for the respondents gave his excellent assistance. 4. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent (since deceased by his L.Rs) is the defendant. 5. The appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for Specific Performance of the contract or in the alternative for refund of advance sale consideration of Rs. 2,000/- along with future interest at 18% p.a. 6. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. 7. The appellant-plaintiff filed the appeal. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. So the appellant-plaintiff filed this Regular S...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Jee Service Station and anr. Vs. Syndicate Bank and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas551(Kar)
Tirath S. Thakur, J. 1. Common questions of law arise for consideration in these two petitions which shall stand disposed of by this common order. The questions relate to the true and correct interpretation of the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the rules framed thereunder. The controversy arises against the following backdrop.2. O. S. No. 5063 of 1992 was filed by the Syndicate Bank against the petitioners in W. P. No. 21008 of 1997, in the City Civil Court at Bangalore, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,38,263.45 in connection with two facilities extended to the said petitioner by way of loan and overdraft against two sets of documents separately executed for each one of the said facilities. Similarly 0. S. No. 14 of 1990 was filed by the respondent, Vijaya Bank, against the petitioners in W. P, Nos. 24613-14 of 1997, claiming a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,17,03,394.89 on account of two facilities one by way of open loan cash...
Tag this Judgment!Papanaika Alias Papa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1611
1. An incident of considerable seriousness took place at a village by name Mallahalli in Nanjangud Taluk on 24-3-1986 at about 4 p.m. in the afternoon. It is admitted that there were two factions in the village, the accused belonging to one of them and the deceased, injured and witnesses belonging to the other one. We do not need to go into the history of the dispute which had something to do with a piece of land known as 'Halepura garden'. We only refer to this in passing because the prosecution story is slightly different in so far as it is com tended that on the morning of that day an altercation took place near the water tank between PW-1 Malligamma and the son of A-3 Jayaraj. In the course of that altercation, Jayaraj is alleged to have kicked PW-1 and in order to avoid a flare up some of the other ladies intervened and took her to her house. Sometime later in the day, her husband who is the deceased returned from the Court and as is to be expected, she not only narrated the incid...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Salvador Saver F ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ508; ILR1999KAR2086; 2000(4)KarLJ114
ORDER1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the judgment and award dated 19-10-1993 in Motor Vehicles Case No. 547 of 1989 passed by the District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karwar, Uttara Kannada (henceforth in brief as 'MACT'). In passing the same, the MACT had awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the respondent 2-owner. The appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that its liability would have been restricted to Rs. 50,000/- in terms of the insurance policy.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri Yoganarasimha. The respondent 1 is represented by Sri V.P. Kulkarni. The respondent 2 having been served with notice had remained absent. The respondent 3-claimant is represented by Sri B.S. Hadimani. I have also perused the case records.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri Yoganarasimha while taking me through the facts of the...
Tag this Judgment!H.M. Nagaraju Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2276; 1998(4)KarLJ272
ORDER1. The petitioner who is the elected member of the Duggatti Grama Panchayath has filed an election petition in the Court of Munsiff at Chamarajnagar in Election Petition No. 1 of 1996 challenging the election of the 3rd respondent to the post of Adhyaksha on the ground that the election of the 3rd respondent is illegal and void as it is contrary to the rules provided for election to the post of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. The learned Munsiff by his order dated 31st May, 1996, dismissed the election petition upholding the election of the 3rd respondent. This order is called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition.2. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Writ Petition is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the order of the Munsiff is revisable under Section 115 of the CPC. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of this Court in H.V. Venkatesh v Election O...
Tag this Judgment!Govindappa (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2215; 1998(4)KarLJ509
ORDER1. Heard Mr. R. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. A.G. Shivanna, learned Counsel for respondent 7 and Mr. R.Tharesh, learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 6.2. The question that to be attended herein is as to whether the purchaser, under an agreement for sale of agricultural land in respect of which occupancy rights is claimed under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act'), has any right of participating in the occupancy proceedings?3. The facts of the case lie in a short compass. One late Mr. Govindappa, whose estate is being represented by his son in the present writ petition, had filed an application in Form No. 7 (Annexure-A) as prescribed under Rule 19(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 on 5-11-1975 claiming occupancy rights in respect of land measuring about 10 acres in Sy. No. 21 of Yerrappannahalli Village, Bidarahallt Hobli, Bangalo...
Tag this Judgment!High Court of Karnataka (Suo Motu Writ Petition) Vs. State of Karnatak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant327; 1998(4)KarLJ749
ORDERR.P. Sethi, CJ.1. Taking cognizance of two news items published in the Times of India dated 11-1-1996 in its Bangalore Edition, a learned Judge of this Court initiated suo motu action directing the Registrar General to register his order of reference as writ petition and obtain appropriate orders from the Chief Justice for allocation of Court. In his order of reference, the learned Judge found that there was virtual break-down of law enforcement machinery which was found reflected because of the alleged rise of crime in the city of Bangalore.2. Vide Court order dated 29th May, 1996, notices were issued to the Respondents. On 12th July, 1996, this Court felt that notice should also be issued to the Chairman of the Bar Council of Karnataka to assist the Court in adjudicating the powers, limitations and extent of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction in public interest litigation initiated suo motu. Notice was also issued to the Resident Editor of the Times of India, Bangalore....
Tag this Judgment!Basawwa and Others Vs. the Land Tribunal, Dharwad and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2722; 1998(5)KarLJ158
ORDER1. The three petitioners seems to be terribly upset with the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the 3rd respondent-Fakeerawwa who is none other than the own sister of the mother of the present petitioners. There appears to have litigation between the parties to acquire at least half share in the properties, which has been succeeded by Fakeerawwa as the sole legatee under the Registered Will executed in her favour by her mother Hanumawa on 28-5-1984. 2. It is a matter of record that land bearing Sy. No. 96/3A measuring 5 acres 25 guntas of Sattoor Village, Dharwad Taluk, is a Devastana Nirandara land and this was granted by the Government to the then Vahivatdar, i.e., one Poojari Maribasya who happens to be the adopted son of Poojari Lankya by an order dated 12-3-1851 in No. 24/71-72. Subsequently, after the death of Poojari Maribasya, the name of Hanu-mawwa, his daughter has been entered in the year 1918-1919 as the inamdar, in the Inam 'B' Register and the said land was cover...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Gundaboudi and Another Vs. the State Bank of India, Central Offic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1786
ORDER1. These two connected petitions raise a common question of construction of Rule 51(3) of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules ('the Rules' for short).2. Most of the facts are not in dispute. Basing on the findings of the enquiry officer, who had enquired into certain allegations made against the petitioner in the charge memo dated 21-4-1986, the disciplinary authority by his order dated 7-5-1987, had dismissed the petitioner from the services of the respondent-Bank. On an appeal filed by the delinquent, the appellate authority modified the order of the disciplinary authority by his order dated 8-10-1987, which was communicated to the petitioner on 21-9-1988. On a request made by the disciplinary authority, the reviewing authority of the respondent-Bank, in its meeting held on 25-8-1988 passes a resolution and the same is as under:'Order of the appellate authority is liable to review and the order is stayed. Petitioner is asked to show cause why the orders of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »