Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2001(5)KarLJ315
V. Gopal Gowda, J.1. The appellant-Electricity Board has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the Annexure-E, dated 27-9-1993 which is impugned in the writ petition insofar as it relates to the direction to the respondent-consumer to deposit the disputed amount under Section 24(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter called the 'Act' for short) with the Electrical Inspector.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Sri N.K. Gupta submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the amount mentioned in Annexure-E has not become due and therefore neither sub-section (2) nor proviso thereto of Section 24 of the Act will apply. The second ground of attack is that the learned Single Judge has failed to notice that the claim of the appellant-Board is not obliterated and is only postponed till the matter is resolved by the Electricity Inspector with regard to the defective matter. Therefore, he submits that the finding r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(2)KarLJ80
ORDER1. The defendants have challenged the decree for partition granted in favour of the plaintiff-their sister of 1/5th share by the First Appellate Court while the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. The relationship of the parties are not in dispute and the property is also not in dispute. But the defence set up by the defendants 1 to 4 was that the suit Item No.1 was self-acquired property of the deceased wife of the first defendant and the mother of the plaintiff and other defendants. The second item was denied. It was further contended that the suit house was put up from and out of the joint acquisition of defendants 1 to 3, neither the plaintiff nor defendant 4 have any sort of right or interest in Item No.1.The Trial Court found that the suit property was inherited by the plaintiff-defendants through the mother of the first defendant and defendants 2 to 4 and also it held that the property is a joint ownership of all the properties. The claim of the defendants that the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3104
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By these Revision Petitions which have been moved under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revisionist applicants have challenged the orders dated April 15, 1993 and 3rd July 1993 in E.A.T. Appeal Nos.5/92 and 6/92 respectively passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal No. 1, Bijapur.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the teacher who is also an employee of the respondent-institution, having felt aggrieved from inaction of the Management-Board in not paying his salary from 1.6.1989 till 1.3.1992, the Management having replied to the notice issued by the employee, filed an appeal under Section 8 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 and the Tribunal, after having considered the matter, issued the following directions:-'In the result, the appeal is allowed. Acting under Section 10(4) of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 the following order is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR3503; 1998(5)KarLJ658
ORDER1. Since the facts involved in all these petitions and also the contentions raised, are fairly similar and identical, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. A few facts, which may have a bearing for the disposal of these petitions, may be set out as hereunder:(a) In Writ Petition No. 6271 of 1997, the petitioners claim to be the joint owners in possession of land measuring 9 acres comprised in Survey No. 66/B situated at Raichur Town, Raichur Taluk and District. (b) In Writ Petition No. 10976 of 1997, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 11 acres, 30 guntas and 26 guntas in Survey Nos. 72/1, 75 and 77 respectively. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10977 of 1997 are the owners of the land measuring 1 acre 16 guntas, 36 guntas, 1 acre 22 guntas and 1 acre, 35 guntas in Survey Nos. 72/2, 74, 76 and 78 respectively. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 10978 of 1997, are the owners of land measuring 2 acres 2 guntas in Survey No. 79....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant313; 1998(4)KarLJ293
ORDER1. This is a tenant's revision under Section 50(2) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore on 21-3-1992 while rejecting the claim of the landlord for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) and (j) of the Act in HRC. No. 1897 of 1986 directed the eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act. This order is under challenge in this revision petition.This revision is filed on 15-4-1992 and it would appear that in themeantime on 2-4-1992 tenant N. Ramaprasad died and therefore thisrevision petition is filed along with the application LA. No. I underOrder 22, Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC with a prayer to bring theL.Rs (4 sons) of the deceased revision petitioner on record in place of thetenant. I would refer to the petitioner-landlord and respondent-tenant(deceased) as they were arrayed in the eviction petition, as landlord andtenant for the purpose of convenience.2. The landlord sought for evi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ263
ORDER1. Despite service of notice, second respondent has not appeared and contested the proceedings.2. The foundational facts which are not in dispute may be stated at the threshold. The petitioner is a member of the Backward Class in Category-I. He is presently employed as a Scientific Officer in Karnataka State Sericulture and Development Institute. He holds post graduate degree of M.Sc. (Agriculture) I Class (year 1988) from the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.3. Respondent-University had published a notification dated 30-6-1994 inviting applications for several posts in its faculties including the post of Assistant Professor, Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000. In the said notification details were also furnished regarding reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other priority categories among backwards. That notification is at Annexure-B. As per the notification for the post of Assistant Professo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ476
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. The land bearing Sy. No. 34/1992 of Kalenahalli, Shikaripura Taluk, Shimoga District, measuring one acre was the Government land. It was granted under darkhast to respondent 1 by the competent revenue authority and the Saguvali Chit i.e., 'grant certificate' dated 30-4-1962 was issued to him. On 26-6-1967 the said land was sold by respondent 1 to the petitioner's father late Kami Giddappa, under a registered sale deed. Having so purchased it, the latter had been in actual possession and enjoyment thereof. After his death, his son petitioner Vishwanath is stated to be in enjoyment, possession and cultivation of the said land.3. Respondent 1-Muniyappa is a member of Scheduled Caste which fact is not in dispute. Somewhere in 1993 he made an application to respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner seeking restoration of the said land alleging that the same had been purchased by petitioner's father in contravention of the non-alienation condition of the grant which pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant407; 1998(5)KarLJ342
ORDER1. This revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Court's Act, 1964 arises from the judgment and decree dated 19-1-1993 passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in S.C. No. 10904 of 1991 whereby plaintiffs suit for recovery of money was decreed in part. The plaintiff claim for a sum of Rs. 9,999/- with interest and cost.2. The Trial Court decreed the suit against defendant 1 who is respondent 1 for a sum of Rs. 7,316/- with proportionate cost and with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.3. The plaintiffs case in the nutshell is that plaintiff who is revisionist in the case (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has been the dealer in Television sets and the 1st defendant had approached the plaintiff to purchase Black and White T.V. set on credit basis on the undertaking given by defendants 4 and 5 along with Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Hoskote and Byrappa, Accountant, Town Municipal Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2101; 1998(4)KarLJ302
ORDER1. This is a tenant's petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents herein are the landlords of a shop premises which is in the occupation of the petitioner. The landlords filed the eviction petition under the provisos (h) and (p) of Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the Act).2. The landlords contended that when the premises was let out to the tenant by the father of respondents 2 to 7, respondents 2 to 7 were all still students, that the premises was required for the use of third respondent herein who wanted to start a business in sanitary fittings and furniture in order to earn his livelihood. They also contended that they, and before them, the father of respondents 2 to 7, had been requesting the petitioner to vacate the premises; and the tenant will not be put to any hardship if he is ordered to vacate the premises.3. The landlords also contended that the tenant has acquired a suitable premises for carrying on his bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2000(1)KarLJ48
ORDER1. The question raised in these writ petitions mainly relates to the validity of Rule 6 of Annexure-A Statutes adopted by the 1st respondent-University under Section 62 of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1994 Act' for brevity, in relation to affiliation of colleges to the said University. The brief facts run thus:2. The petitioners have established and are maintaining educational institutions offering different Courses in Health Sciences. Earlier, these institutions were affiliated to Mangalore University. The details of the educational instructions offered as recited in the writ petitions are not relevant for resolving of the dispute in question. When, with effect from 1-6-1996, the 1st respondent-University was established by enacting the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act (Act No. 44 of 1994), by operation of Section 5(3) thereof, the petitioners-colleges were deemed to be admitted to the privileges of or aff...
Tag this Judgment!