Karnataka Court July 1998 Judgments

Syndicate Bank, Saraswathipuram, Mysore Vs. Smt. B. Anuradha and Other ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ484

ORDER1. Heard Sri G.V. Thimmappaiah, learned Counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, and Sri G. Sridhar for Sri G. Kasturi for respondents.2. This revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the judgment and order dated 24-6-1994 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, whereby the learned Civil Judge has allowed the application moved by the present respondents 1 to 3 under Order 21, Rule 58 of the CPC and has held that the property -- subject-matter of dispute in the proceedings which has been the subject-matter of attachment being the trust property, the said property could not be attached and in ordering the release of that property from being attached. In the course of arguments, a preliminary objection was raised by Sri Sridhar that the revision is not maintainable because in view of Order 21, Rule 58(4), it has been provided that, an order passed under Order 21, Rule 58 shall have same force as that of decree and it shall also be subjected to appeal be...

Maruthy Enterprises Vs. the Corporation of City of Bangalore

Court: Karnataka

ORDERR.P. Sethi, CJ. 1. The point of law requiring adjudication in this petition is stated to be covered by Single Bench judgments of this Court in M/S. RAJATHA ENTERPRISES v. COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE : ILR1996KAR1772 and J. SURESH v. CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE, : ILR1996KAR2430 Apparently agreeing with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'BHAGWANT RAI AND ORS., APPELLANTS v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS., RESPONDENTS, : AIR1996SC95 the law laid down by this Court in the earlier mentioned two judgments may not be correct, the learned Single Judge felt it proper to refer this matter to the Division Bench for authoritative pronouncement. 2. In order to determine the plea of law it is necessary to have a resume of facts. The petitioner firm is stated to have taken the premises bearing Municipal Corporation No. 381/2 located at Sampige Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore on a long term ...

Koramangala Residents' Vigilance Group, Bangalore and Another Vs. Corp ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ206

1. Contending that the building licence issued for construction of multistoried multi apartments on Site Nos. 403 and 443 in II and III cross in III Block, Koramangala Layout, Bangalore, was illegal and void, the petitioners, an association of the residents of the area, had prayed for quashing of the licence and for issuance of directions to respondent 1 to demolish the construction already put up on the sites by exercising the powers vested in it under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). It was submitted that the residents in the area had acquired sites and built houses upon being made to understand and under the bona fide belief that the layout would be developed and maintained in accordance with law. According to them, the menace of multistoreyed and multi-apartment buildings in the Bangalore City particularly in Koramangala layout which is considered to be a posh and prestigious layout has been increasing. Many property deve...

Shivaji Yallappa Wagmode and Another Vs. Smt. Gangabai and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ150

ORDER1. Heard Sri Rasheed Khan holding brief for Sri Vigneshwara Shastry, learned Counsel for the petitioners.2. This revision arises from the judgment and order dated 2-7-1994 passed by the I Additional Munsiff, Hubli, on an application under Order 41, Rule 6(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC rejecting to grant the order to stay the sale of property in execution decree.3. The facts of the case in the nut-shell are that, the plaintiffs-respondents decree holders had filed the suit for a decree for specific performance of contract or in alternative for return of sale advance with interest. The Trial Court decreed that suit vide judgment and order dated 18-8-1991. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree, the defendants preferred the appeal which is pending before the Civil Court namely R.A. No. 112 of 1991. I am informed that appeal is yet pending. The applicant had also filed an application for interim stay under Order 41, Rule 5 of CPC. The Appellate Court granted a stay order...

A. Hiriyanna Gowda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998CriLJ4756; 1998(5)KarLJ228

ORDER ON I.A. II1. The present application is filed under Section 340, Cr. P.C. and undoubtedly involves a power that the Courts have been seldom exercising. It has unfortunately become the order of the day, for false statements to be made in the course of judicial proceedings even on oath and attempts made to substantiate these false statements through affidavits or fabricated documents. It is very sad when this happens because the real backbone of the working of the judicial system is based on the element of trust and confidence and the purpose of obtaining a statement on oath from the parties or written pleadings in order to arrive at a correct decision after evaluating the respective positions. In all matters of fact therefore, it is not only a question of ethics, but an inflexible requirement of law that every statement made must be true to the extent thatit must be verified and correct to the knowledge of the person making it. When a client instructs his learned Advocate to draft...

Sankappa Gangappa Ronad Vs. Shivappa Dharmappa Kareseeri

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ389

ORDER1. This civil revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code arises from the order dated 16-4-1994 delivered in Ex. Case No. 2 of 1991 by the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Navalgund. The operative portion of the order reads as under.-'Case advanced on board. G.L.M. ADV. filed application under Order 21, Rule 38, Section 51, Civil Procedure Code with P/F praying for issue of arrest warrant to judgment-debtor with police aid. Heard and same is allowed. Issue arrest warrant to judgment-debtor with police aid, returnable by 22-4-1994. Sd/-16-4-1994 Munsiff, Navalgund'.Feeling aggrieved from this order, the judgment-debtor has filed this present revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.2. I have heard Sri S.A. Kalagi, learned Counsel for the revisionist-petitioner and Sri Umesh R. Malimath, learned Counsel for the respondent.3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the judgment-debtor, revisionist-petitioner that the Court below has acted illegally in passing the impugned ...

Bhimshenrao Vs. Ambarao

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR4236; 1998(5)KarLJ282

ORDER1. The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor. The respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for injunction. During the pendency of the suit there was an interim order in favour of the respondent, that was not obeyed by the petitioner. Pursuant to it, he sought to execute the order. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on Section 36, Civil Procedure Code which reads as follows: '36. The provision of this code relating to the execution of decrees (including provisions relating to payment under a decree) shall so far as they are applicable, be deemed to apply to the execution of orders (including payment under as order)'.2. Section 36 clearly indicates that even an interim order can be executed in the same way as a decree. On the basis of that the Execution Petition was held as maintainable. Aggrieved by that the petitioner preferred the civil revision petition. 3. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that a well considered order ha...

M/S. Ameya Presence Marketing, Bangalore Vs. the Bangalore City Corpor ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1998Kant400; 1998(5)KarLJ398

R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. All the appellants herein are running advertising agencies which are stated to be registered with the respondent-Corporation. They allege to have filed applications before the 2nd respondent seeking permission to erect hoardings at different places in the City. As, despite receipt of the applications and the expiry of the statutory period, no order was passed, they filed petitions in this Court for issuance of directions to the respondent-Corporation not to remove the hoardings erected by them on the ground that they be deemed to have permission in terms of the provisions of Section 443(10) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('Act' for short). The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the orders impugned in these appeals holding that the deemed provisions under Section 443(10) of the Act were not applicable in view of the mandatory provisions made under Sections 134 and 135 of the Act providing for tax and seeking of written pe...

K.A. Chidambara Rao Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2000]241ITR366(KAR); [2000]241ITR366(Karn)

Ashok Bhan, J.1. These petitions are filed under Section 55 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated July 19, 1985, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Bangalore (annexure E), purporting to revise the assessment orders passed by the Additional Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Hassan, annexures B and C, relating to the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80.2. A Hindu undivided family of Sri K.A. Chidambara Rao, owned agricultural lands on which coffee was grown. For the years 1975-76 and 1976-77, the coffee grown on these lands was owned with the Coffee Board. Part payment towards the sale price was made to Chidambara Rao as the karta of the Hindu undivided family. Supplementary payments to the coffee pool for these years were to be made on the declaration of dividends by the Coffee Board. The Hindu undivided family consisted of K.A., Chidambara Rao and his wife. He had no children. He admitted his paternal...

Ameya Presence Marketing Vs. the Bangalore City Corporation

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR3378

R.P Sethi, C.J.1. All the appellants herein are running advertising agencies which are stated to be registered with the respondent - Corporation. They allege to have filed applications before the 2nd respondent seeking permission to erect hoardings at different places in the City. As, despite receipt of the applications and the expiry of the statutory period, no order was passed, they filed petitions in this Court for issuance of directions to the respondent - Corporation not to remove the hoardings erected by them on the ground that they be deemed to have permission in terms of the provisions of Section 443(10) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('Act' for short). The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the orders impugned in these appeals holding that the deemed provisions under Section 443(10) of the Act were not applicable in view of the mandatory provisions made under Section 134 and 135 of the Act providing for tax and seeking of written ...