Karnataka Court June 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.
K. Harnatha Rao Vs. Smt. Parvathamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ288
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant Sri P.R. Ramesh and Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for respondents 2, 3a and 3b and 4.2. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the judgment and order dated 16-12-1993 delivered by Sri K.M. Murari Mouni, learned Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga, allowing the appeal of the judgment-debtor i.e. present respondents 3a and 3b in execution case No. 41 of 1986 challenging the order of the Additional Munsiff, Shimoga, dated 2-4-1993 on I.A. No. 5 under Order 21, Rule 90 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Order 21, Rule 66 of the CPC. The learned Trial Court i.e., Execution Court rejected the application of the 4th judgment-debtor taking the view that there was proper sale proclamation and sale warrant. There was valid tom-tom and the value offered is also adequate and sufficient. He held that the 4th judgment-debtor failed to show that there is material irregularity which resulted in substantial injury caused to him by ...
St. Joseph's Higher Primary School, Bangalore and Another Vs. Smt. J. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4065; 1998(4)KarLJ421
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. By an order dated 18-11-1994 this petition was referred by one of us (Bharuka, J.) to a larger Bench for authoritative decision about the correctness of the decision reported in N.V.R. Ram v Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore and Others . The issue involved is, whether the Educational Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Karnataka Act') can entertain the appeal under Section 10 of the Act against an order of 'termination simpliciter? The reference was made in view of the conflicting decisions of this Court on the point.2. The petitioners herein appointed the first respondent on 10-9-1986 subject to approval by the Department. On 17-11-1987 the approval was rejected. The first respondent was relieved from the service on 30-3-1988. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent preferred appeal in M.A.E.A.T. 20 of 1988 before the Educatio...
Chinnathayappa Vs. Shashidhar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ116
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2-11-1993 on I.A. No. IV in O.S. No. 2321 of 1987 on the file of the XV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, filed by the appellant-plaintiff.2. The facts in brief are as hereunder.That, the appellant-plaintiff had filed the above suit as against the respondent-defendant for a declaration and permanent injunction and to restrain the respondent-defendant from interfering with the suit schedule property described as the portion of the lands bearing S. Nos. 42/3, 42/4 and 42/5 now re-S. No. 144 situated at Mathikere village now within the Corporation Division No. 2, Bangalore-54 measuring east to west on the northern side 115 feet, east to west on the southern side 65 feet, north to south on the eastern side 86 feet and north to south on the western side 102 feet. The appellant-plaintiff had also filed I.A. No. I for ad interim order of temporary injunction to restrain the respondent-defendant from interfering or meddling with the abov...
Saranabasayya Chandrashekharayya Hiremath Vs. Basanagouda Fakkiragouda ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ425
ORDER1. Heard Sri Shivananda holding brief for Sri M.V. Hiremath, learned Counsel for the revisionist-applicant and Sri Rasheed Khan holding brief for Sri Vigneshwara S. Shastry, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This revision arises from the judgment and order dated 5-3-1994 passed by Sri V.G. Charati, learned Civil Judge, Haveri, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 1993 allowing the appeal of the defendant and setting aside the order dated 29-9-1993 passed by the learned Munsiff, Haveri on I.A. I moved in Original Suit No. 94 of 1992 granting the injunction. The Appellate Court set aside that order and vacated the injunction. The plaintiff-revisionist had filed the Suit No. 94 of 1991 for declaration and injunction against the defendant-opposite party claiming to be in possession and alleging that the defendant was interferring with his possession along with the copy of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court on a perusal of the evi...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohan H.P. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2998; (1999)IIILLJ1533Kant
Chidananda Ullal, J. 1. The first two appeals are directed against two independent orders came to be passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan District, Hassan. The first appeal is directed against the Order dated February 4, 1994 in case No. WCa:SR.10/90 awarding compensation of Rs. 39,424/- together with interest at 6% p.a., whereas the second appeal is directed against the Order dated February 8, 1994 in case] No. WCa:SR. 14/90 awarding compensation of Rs. 38,176/- together with interest at 6% p.a. and the third appeal is directed against the Order dated May 13, 1994 in case No. WCA.CR.61/93-94 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mandya Dist. Mandya, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,12,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a.2. All these appeals are filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Regional Manager.3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company Sri S.P. Shankar, Sri K.L. Manjunath, learne...
Harnatha Rao Vs. Parvathamma and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3974
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant Sri P.R. Ramesh and Sri M.R, Rajagopal, learned Counsel for respondents 2, 3A and 3B and 4.2. This revision under Section 115 of code of Civil Procedure arises from the judgment and order dated 16.12.1993 delivered by Sri K.M. Murari Mouni, learned Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga, allowing the appeal of the judgment - debtor i.e. present respondent No. 3A and B in execution case No. 41/86 challenging the order of the Additional Munsiff, Shimoga, dated 2.4.1993 on (A No. 5 under Order 21 Rule 90 r/w Section 151 CPC and Order 21 Rule 66 CPC. The learned Trial Court i.e., Execution Court rejected the application of the 4th Judgment Debtor taking the view that there was proper sale proclamation and sale warrant. There was valid tom-tom and the value offered is also adequate and sufficient. He held that the 4th Judgment Debtor failed to show that there is material irregularity which resulted in substantial injury caus...
S.V. Venkataramanappa (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. Ravindra K. Naidu Alias ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR120; 2000(1)KarLJ625
ORDER1. Petitioners in this revision under Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('Act' or 'KRC Act' for short) are the legal heirs ofthe deceased tenant (S.V. Venkataramanappa) in regard to a non-residential premises. The respondent herein is the landlord of the premises. The monthly rent is Rs. 200/- per month. The respondent herein filed a petition against the tenant for eviction under proviso (h) to Section 21(1) of the Act.2. During the pendency of the said petition, the tenant died. His wife and four sons (the petitioners herein) were brought on record, as his legal representatives, Thereafter, the said L.Rs of the tenant made an application under Section 151 of the CPC for dismissal of the petition contending that the eviction petition is not maintainable after the death of tenant of a non-residential premises, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Venkatesh Thimmaiah Gurjalkar v S.S. Hawaldar . The Trial Court rejected the application by order dated 23...
Lachmanna B. Horamani Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Kant405; ILR1998KAR2385; 1998(5)KarLJ614
ORDER1. The petitioner has prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator on the basis of the dispute having arisen in the execution of contract taken by him from the respondent. Notice dated 22-1-1996 was served by the petitioner on the Chief Engineer. Reminder was sent on 2-2-1996 and ultimately this petition was filed on 3-9-1997. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the agreement does not contain any clause for arbitration. Clause 29 could not be construed as a clause for arbitration. Reliance is placed on the decision given in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Tipper Chand , where there was clause empowering Superintending Engineer with power of supervision. The said Clause 22 was as under: 'Except where otherwise specified in the contract the decision of the Superintending Engineer for the time being shall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties to the contract upon all questions relating to the meaning of the specifications, design, drawing and instruct...
Puttaiah Vs. Land Tribunal, Nelamangala Taluk, Nelamangala, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1825; 1998(6)KarLJ83
ORDER1. I have heard the two contesting learned Advocates as also thelearned Government Advocate. The law point involved in this case is ofsome consequence. The original proceedings before the Tribunal culminated in an order dated 20-3-1982 in favour of respondent 2. The respondent 2 claims to be the Archak and he had applied for occupancy rightsin respect of the land in question. The petitioner's brother Thimmaiahhad also applied for occupancy rights in respect of a part of the land. Itappears that during the hearing of the proceedings a statement wasplaced on record by Thimmaiah that he was not in fact cultivating as aresult of which the occupancy rights were granted in favour of respondent 2 in respect of the whole area of 4 acres 3 guntas. According to thepetitioner's learned Advocate Thimmaiah had fallen seriously ill andrespondent 2 had taken him away to some other place and during thisperiod respondent 2 has heavily influenced Thimmaiah to withdraw hisclaim. The contention is th...
Equipment Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1998
Reported in: 2004(163)ELT303(Kar)
1. This appeal has been filed along with LA. 1 for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. The appeal and LA. 1 are taken up together for disposal.2. The judgment under appeal was delivered on 11th March, 1998. Application for obtaining the certified copy was filed on 12th of March, 1998. The same was ready on 27th March, 1998 and the delivery was taken on the same date. The last date for filing the appeal fell during the period the High Court was closed for its summer vacation. The High Court reopened on 25th May, 1998. The appeal could be filed on the reopening day of the Court. The appeal was filed on the next day i.e., second day of reopening of the High Court i.e., on 26-5-1998. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the delay may be condoned as the mistake was inadvertent. We find force in his submission and condone the delay in filing the appeal.3. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant on merits.4. Appellant had imported high pressure PTFE (Teflon) sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »