Karnataka Court October 2001 Judgments
B. Vasudeva Belegar Vs. Sri Anjanaya Gas Agency and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR5655; 2002(5)KarLJ107
ORDERM.P. Chinnappa, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the parties.2. The petitioner who is the plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant 2 to supply LPG cylinder which was illegally and unauthorisedly suspended by 2nd respondent and also permanent injunction restraining the first respondent herein from suspending LPG supply and imposing restriction of 21 days, etc. and also for cost of the suit. Subsequently, the petitioner has sought for an amendment claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 13,500/-. That application was rejected by the Court below in O.S. No. 31 of 1991 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kundapura. As against the order passed on I.A. No. VII, dated 27-3-2001, this petition is filed.3. The only ground on which the application was rejected is that the same is barred by time. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the petitioner is within time and even otherwise also ...
Tag this Judgment!Shashikala Vs. S. Savithri and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-03-2001
Reported in: ILR2001KAR5209; 2002(1)KarLJ388
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner herein is residing in house bearing T.S. No. 9/2 of Kodiyalbail area within the Mangalore City Corporation belonging to Smt. Somu Hengsu. The petitioner also claims that it had been rented out to one Smt. Kittu Hengsu. The landlord filed Original Suit No. 195 of 1986 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalore to eject the petitioner under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The said suit was decreed on 12-6-1998 ordering the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the property. As against that judgment and decree the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Court which also came to be dismissed as they were not brought on record. Therefore, the respondent herein filed Ex. Case No. 113 of 1998 on the file of the 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalore, against the petitioner for executing the decree and to obtain possession of the house in question. The judgment-debtor raised object...
Tag this Judgment!M.L. Lingaraj Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: ILR2002KAR1286; 2002(1)KarLJ175
ORDERThe Court 1. Short point involved in this writ petition is whether a transferee of a licence is entitled to claim any amount deposited by the earlier licensee. 2. One H.R. Mariholakar was CL-2 licensee and he had continued his business from the excise year 1990-91. However, he made an application for grant of licence for the excise year 1998-99. As per IMFL Rules, saidMariholakar has deposited the licence fee in advance along with the application for licence. Licence was not granted for the said year. Therefore, he has not done any business in respect of the excise year 1998-99. For the subsequent year licence was granted in favour of Mariholakar and the same has been transferred in favour of the present petitioner M.L. Lingaraj. Present petitioner who is a transferee of a licence of Mariholakar demanded the respondents to refund the amount deposited by Mariholakar. The same was not considered and therefore the present petition is filed requesting this Court to issue a writ of man...
Tag this Judgment!Masthan Vs. SirajuddIn and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)KarLJ224
ORDERThe Court 1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. On going through the impugned order of the Principal District Judge, Mysore in Rent Revision No. 43 of 1984 which is under challenge in this revision, I find that the learned District Judge has not considered all the grounds and issues involved in the revision. Only on the technical ground of non-compliance of direction of the Trial Court in depositing the arrears of rent within one month's time granted, it was held that the revision was not maintainable. The Counsel for the petitioner relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in P.R. Deshpande v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, to contend that the non-deposit of rent as directed by the Trial Court entails dismissal of the revision on technical grounds. I find that the said ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The material observations of the Supreme Court in para 18 are reproduced hereunder: '18. Learned Counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›