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.
P.S. Veerendra Prasad and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2629; 1998(5)KarLJ473
ORDER1. The petitioners are directors of the 5th respondent-society. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 30A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'). The action of the 1st respondent, according to the petitioners, is wholly unnecessary, arbitrary and unwarranted. The power by the 1st respondent has been exercised not in accordance with law. The 1st petitioner is the president and the other petitioners are the members of the managing committee. There was an election to the members of the managing committee on 22-9-1996 for a period of three years which will come to an end in 1999. The proceedings were initiated to supersede the society under Section 30A of the Act. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies-the third respondent herein recommended that the Government may initiate action under Section 30A of the Act. In other words, on a perusal of the allegations...
Management of Bharatiya Samskrithi Vidyapith, Bangalore Vs. Smt. S.V. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ648
ORDER1. These revision petitions under Section 115 of the CPC have been filed from the order dated 4-12-1991 passed in M.A. E.A.T. No. 28 of 1989 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City and Member of Educational Tribunal, Bangalore, partly allowing the appeal and ordering that the impugned seniority list Annexure-L dated 16-6-1988 and the memo dated 5-8-1989 vide Annexure-M and the communication dated 28-8-1989 was set aside as illegal and arbitrary. These revision petitions arise from this common order and these have been filed by persons aggrieved from the order of the Tribunal.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and opposite parties.3. These revisions have been filed under Section 115 of the CPC. Section 115, sub-section (1) reads as under:--'Section 115. Revision.- (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinat...
The Hubli-dharwad Municipal Corporation Vs. Ravi P. Tiwari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ560
ORDER1.These two civil revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arise from the judgment and order, delivered by the Principal District Judge, Dharwad, on an application under Section 471 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, namely Ravi P. Tiwari v The Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation.2. Revisionist-applicant filed this application under Section 471 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, for the following reliefs, namely.--To decide and determine the dispute between the applicant and the Corporation in respect of the suit tender work and various tender items mentioned in the petition. He prayed for award of a sum of Rs. 9,65,113-09 paise as the amount due as against the Corporation and in favour of the claimant, The claimant further claimed further interest at 18 per cent per annum on Rs. 5,48,506-00 from the date of application till the payment and for costs. According to the applicant who claims himself to be Engineer and regist...
K. Nanjunda Swamy and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ82
ORDER1. This Court by order dated May 30, 1997 (K. Nanjunda Swamy and Others v State of Karnataka and Others), allowed the writ appeals filed by the petitioners, set aside the order dated June 19, 1996 (K. Nanjunda Swamy and Others v State of Karnataka and Others), made by the learned Single Judge and remitted the petitions for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made therein. The only question that arise for consideration is as to, whether the publication of preliminary notification in the newspapers two years after it was published in the Official Gazette could be treated as the 'last date of such publication' for the purpose of computing the period prescribed for making the declaration under sub- Section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called 'the Act'?2. The undisputed facts in this case giving rise to the aforesaid issue are as follows:The 2nd respondent issued a notification dated 27-6-1992 under subsecti...
Smt. Aswathamma Vs. H.M. Vijayaraghava
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-03-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant21; 1998(5)KarLJ320
ORDER1. This revision is under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from the order dated 14-12-1993, passed by Munsiff, T. Narasipura on I.A. No. 4 moved in FDP 18 of 1990, in Original Suit No. 22 of 1977, allowing the impleadment of the respondent as defendant 4.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the suit for partition had been filed by the plaintiff Smt. Aswathamma, impleading Kotamma, Sampathamma and Vijayalakshmi as defendants, claiming 1/4th share each against defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. It may be mentioned as observed by the Trial Court, second defendant in her written statement had taken the plea that the deceased first defendant had taken her son in adoption and during the trial and registered will was executed in favour of the present applicant whereby deceased defendant 1 had bequeathed the suit property in favour of the son of defendant 2, that is the present appellant, but the plaintiff did not implead the applicant in the suit. Inspite of issue 2 raise...
Srinivas Rao Vs. Dattatrayarao and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ212
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th September, 1993, whereby the learned Munsiff, Bidar has allowed the application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (LA. No. V) moved by defendant 3 in Original Suit No. 80 of 1987. 2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that the suit has been filed for declaration by the plaintiff-revisionist to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 have been the joint owners of the properties. The plaintiffs claim for declaration that plaintiffs along with defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the joint owners in possession of land in dispute as mentioned in the relief clause. They further sought declaration that the registered sale deed bearing No. 402 of 1987 dated 24-4-1987, executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant 3 is ineffective, inoperative against the rights of the plaintiffs. He also sought perpetual injunction against defendants 1 to 3 from causing any ...
V. Chandranna and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ685
ORDER1. The question involved herein is short but of far reaching effect. It pertains to the jurisdiction of the Tribunals constituted under Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act').2. The above question has arisen in the context of the order dated 26-3-1997 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent Land Tribunal. This order has been passed by the Tribunal in the guise of its jurisdiction under Section 48A of the Act. This order pertains to an agricultural land measuring 2 acres 1 gunta of Sy. No. 12/2 of Gattahalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.3. It is not in dispute that Smt. Sarvamangala and her mother late Chennabasamma were owners of the land in question as on 1-3-1974. According to the petitioners, this land was sold by the owners jointly to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners under a registered sale deed dated 26-2-1988 (Annexure-A) on a representation that it was not a tenanted land. It is a matter of rec...
State Government of Karnataka (irrigation Departement), Ukp, Bheemaray ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ553
ORDER1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC has been filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the judgment and order dated 14-6-1993 passed by Sri D.A. Lathe, Civil Judge, Yadgir, in Arbitration Case No. 17 of 1991 allowing the application of the contractor-present respondent for appointment of Arbitrator and in pursuance thereof Sri S.R. Ujjankop, Chief Engineer, I.D., UKP Canal Zone No. 2, Kembhavi, Taluk Shahapur, has been appointed as the sole Arbitrator. The contractor-present respondent filed the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, with a prayer for appointment of sole Arbitrator as per sub-clause (3) of Clause 52 of the agreement dated 18-4-1986 and to refer for determination of the disputed claims as set up by the contractor in his letter dated 29-10-1990 addressed to the Executive Engineer. The petitioner who was the Class III contractor was entrusted with the work of construction of six-bedded hospital at Bheemaray-anagudi, Talu...
N. Mohammad Vs. the Mandal Panchayat, Kalghatgi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2607; 1998(5)KarLJ221
ORDER1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed from the judgment and order dated 23-10-1993 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge, Dharwad, dismissing the applicant's appeal and affirming the order dated 28-9-1993 passed by the Munsiff and JMFC, Kalghatgi, rejecting the revisionalist's application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 of CPC. The Trial Court had opined that the suit itself was not maintainable and that the suit premises being public premises and the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974, is applicable, so Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it and rejected the application. The Appellate Court also considered Section 16 of the Act and opined that revision petitioner-applicant has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction and so injunction cannot be granted. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the revisionist-plaintiff has come up...
Deena George Vs. the Board of Management of St. John's High School, Ba ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-01-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ254
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.2. This revision has been filed from the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal dated 16-1-1993 for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. The revision list has to establish the necessary ingredients of Section 115 that the order impugned has been passed by the Civil Court subordinate to High Court and that no appeal did lay from that order to the High Court and thirdly that the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error coming either under the categories of cases under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 115 and if the order is allowed to stand and not set aside, injustice would be caused and irreparable injury would be caused. So the first ingredient that has to be decided is whether the order is passed by a Civil Court. I have already considered this matter in the case of Hungund Taluka Banjara Vid-hyavardhaka Sangka v Rachappa Chanamallappa Chittawadagi and Another, after duly considering all the questio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »