Karnataka Court March 1999 Judgments
Karnataka Board of Wakf, Bangalore Vs. Land Tribunal, Sira Taluk, Tumk ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant141; ILR1999KAR3319; 1999(5)KarLJ617
ORDER1. The revision is by Wakf Board being aggrieved of the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Tumkur in LRA No. 329 of 1987, dismissing the appeal by confirming the grant of occupancy right.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The land in Sy. No. 361 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas situated at Sira Village is a wakf property under the management of mutawalli namely Razak Baig. The said lands have also been notified in the Gazette as wakf property. In respect of the said lands mutawalli's son namely An-war Baig claimed re-grant under Section 6-A of Karnataka Inams Abolition Act, 1955. The Land Tribunal, Sira by its order dated 27-2-1982 granted occupancy in favour of Anwar Baig. Being aggrieved by the order of Land Tribunal, Wakf Board preferred Writ Petition No. 10732 of 1985. On the establishment of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the matter was transferred and numbered as LRA. 329 of 1987. The Wakf Board relying on the provisions of Mysore Religious and Char...
Tag this Judgment!Truvolt Engineering Company Private Limited, Calcutta and Another Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2046; 1999(5)KarLJ489
ORDER1. The first petitioner, in this petition, is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at Calcutta. The second petitioner is the Managing Director of the first petitioner-Company. 2. In this petition, the petitioners have sought for a declaration that the resolution dated 28th of October, 1998 in Subject No. 38 (291), a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-M, passed by the first respondent-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), wherein the first respondent had resolved to entrust the work relating to erection of two electric cremation furnaces in Bangalore City, to the 6th respondent, is illegal, unconstitutional and void; and for a direction to respondents 1 to 5 not to give effect to the said resolution; and for a further direction to the first respondent to acceptthe tender submitted by the first petitioner for erection of the said electric cremation furnaces. 3. The facts, w...
Tag this Judgment!U. Ahmed Vs. Smt. Y.C. Saraswathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3513; 1999(6)KarLJ158
ORDER1. This revision is against an order dated 29-8-1997 which reads as follows:'Objections filed-Heard and application is allowed for the reasons mentioned in the application. For evidence by 15.9'.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order is not a speaking order, that none of the objections raised by the revision petitioner has been considered by the Court and the order therefore is liable to be set aside. The respondent is stated to have filed two petitions for eviction against the petitioner and another in respect of different portion of thesame property. The revision petitioner opposed the application on various grounds.3. The respondent's Counsel sought to support the order on the ground that the consolidation of cases for purpose of disposal by common order on the ground that the evidence of the landlord is common for both. In G. Vasudeva Murthy v Y. Narasimhachar and Another, Narayana Pai, J., (as he then was) has observed as follows:'3. There never has been any dou...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sarojini Vs. Imamsab Dastagir Saheb Nalaband and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)ALT(Cri)49; 1999CriLJ4361; ILR1999KAR2790; 1999(6)KarLJ83
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. The complainant may be conveniently referred to as the landlady and the 1st respondent-accused as the tenant. 2. The facts, very briefly, which led to this contempt petition being filed, are as follows.-- The landlady got an eviction order of her property in H.R.C. No. 39 of 1977 on 13-9-1980. Aggrieved by this the tenant preferred a revision on 21-9-1981. The District Court, Bijapur allowed the revision and set aside the eviction order passed by the H.R.C. Court. Aggrieved by this, the landlady preferred CRP No. 1627 of 1984. This Court by an order dated 6-6-1984 allowed the CRP and ordered eviction and granted two years time for the tenant to give vacant possession. It is common ground that this order was final and binding on both the parties. 3. Notwithstanding this, the tenant-1st respondent deliberately filed an application in Ex.C. No. 65 of 1993 under Order 21, Rule 99 of the CPC obstructing the landlady from getting possession. This was dismissed by...
Tag this Judgment!Siddabasappa and Others Vs. Manjunatha and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ529
ORDER1. Heard.2. The petitioners are defendants in O.S. No. 14 of 1994 pending on the file of the Court below. They have challenged the Trial Court's order dated 3-8-1996 passed on the preliminary point respecting the valuation of the suit for the purpose of its pecuniary jurisdiction.3. The said O.S. No. 14 of 1994 was filed by the respondents against petitioners for the relief of partition and separate possession of their share in 6 items of suit property. Three of these items are agricultural lands and the remaining 3 were the items of house property. The valuation slip was filed by the plaintiff along with plaint giving necessary description of these items of property and valuing the suit under Section 35(2) read with Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('the Act', for short) for the purpose of Court fee and the pecuniary jurisdiction as well at Rs. 200/- on the plaintiffs' alleged share, in addition to Rs. 450/- paid on their claim to Rs. 16,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Harsh Chandravardhan Desai Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1999
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ568
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the order dated 8th July, 1998, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Dharwad in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 32 of 1995.2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that the Karnataka State Financial Corporation, the present respondent 1 had filed an application under Section 31(1)(aa) and Section 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The Additional District Judge by an order dated 13-12-1994 allowed the application, in the absence of the respondent 1, as according to the Additional District Judge, as it appears from the order dated 13-12-1994 the respondent was personally served who was absent. So, the District Judge observes as under: 'So, he has placed ex parte'. About the respondent 2 also it is mentioned 'He is placed ex parte'. It means that ex parte order has been passed against the applicant and others. 3. Against the order dated 13-12-1994, the present revision petit...
Tag this Judgment!Victor I. Lobo Vs. the Management, the Belgaum Diocese Board of Educat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4194; 1999(5)KarLJ346
ORDER1. The present revision petition has been placed before the Division Bench pursuant to an order of reference made by the learned Single Judge doubting the correctness of the law laid down in the case ofShivaji Education Society Karwar, Uttar Kannada District v Commissioner of Public Instructions, Bangalore and Others, wherein, Saldanha, J., has held that.--'On a careful consideration of the submissions canvassed on behalf of the three contesting parties, the various provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code, the Zilla Parishad Act and other relevant provisions as also the law on the point that has been very lucidly illustrated in the aforesaid decisions, the position that emerges is that after the promulgation of the Zilla Parishad Act, that there can be no dispute about the fact that the overall jurisdiction and control in respect of even the private aided institutions does vest with the Zilla Parishad. Under these circumstances, the departmental authorities were fully justified in iss...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Vasudevan and Others Vs. the Management of M/S. Bharath Fritz Wer ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: [2000(86)FLR986]; ILR1999KAR3065; 2000(1)KarLJ564
ORDER1. The petitioners-workmen are aggrieved by the common award passed by the second respondent-Additional Labour Court in I.D. Nos. 205 to 212 of 1994, dated 5-11-1997, they have filed these writ petitions before this Court challenging the same urging various legal contentions.2. The workmen raised an industrial dispute by presenting their separate claim petitions under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') challenging the action of the management in refusing employment to them during the month of May and June 1992, urging various legal contentions contending that, first respondent-management had appointed them. Prior to the appointment order dated 10-6-1991 copy of the appointment order vide Annexure-C they have worked as Trainee Machine Operators' in the first respondent-management for one year and thereafter they were appointed as Machine Operators in permanent posts on probation for six months. It is also furth...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Mysore Saree Udyog, Bangalore and Another Vs. M/S. Mysore Silk Ud ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ349
1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 1-7-1998 passed by the learned Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on LA. II in O.S. No. 3720 of 1997.2. The brief facts of this case are as follows:As per the plaintiffs-appellants, they are dealing in sale of silk sarees and other dress materials since 1981 under the name and style 'Mysore Saree Udyog'. It is contended that since the date of adoption of the trading name and style, the name of the appellants has become popular and on account of such acquiring goodwill and reputation the words 'Mysore Saree Udyog' are synonym with the appellants only. It is contended that the respondent is also dealing in the sale of silk sarees and dress materials initially under the trading name and style 'Shakti Silks' and recently they have changed to 'Mysore Silk Udyog'. As the name and style adopted by the respondent 'Mysore Silk Udyog' is phonetically similar and deceptive in sense, it may confuse a regular customer related to the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Manganese Ore (India) Limited, Nagpur Vs. the Sandur Manganese and Iro ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas755(Kar); ILR1999KAR2793; 1999(5)KarLJ363
ORDER1. This is a case wherein the petitioners have alleged that the respondents are indebted to them to a substantial extent and that despite various demands including through a statutory notice that the amount is still outstanding and that consequently, the petitioners are justified in applying for the winding-up of the respondent-company principally on the ground that it is incapable of paying its debts. Briefly stated, in paragraph 14 of the petition, the petitioners allege that an amount of Rs. 43,23,504/- was the outstanding debt and it is on this basis that they have presented this petition. The respondents have appeared through their learned Counsel and they have challenged the maintainability of this petition principally on two grounds, the first being that the service of statutory notice in the manner prescribed under the Companies Act is condition precedent for the presentation of winding up or more importantly, for the grant of the reliefs asked for as the presumption of co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »