Karnataka Court February 2003 Judgments
Shahwar Basheer and ors. Vs. Veena Mohan and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4732; 2004(3)KarLJ49
ORDERSrinivasa Reddy, J.1. All these petitions give rise to a common question of law, for my consideration. The question is, whether by operation of Section 5 of The Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the present Act' for short) the landlords of the premises involved in these petitions are entitled to recover possession of the premises without the need to take recourse to Section 27 of the Act.2. Let me first refer to the background which has given rise to this question. The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the repealed Act' for short) provided for inheritability of tenancy by the legal representatives of the original tenant. The inheritance was automatic and there was no end for this inheritance, in that, after the wife or husband of the original tenant, the sons and daughters and after them the grandson and grand-daughters could stake claim because the repealed Act recognized them all as statutory tenants by including in the definition of the term, 'tenant' the surviving spouse or any son ...
Tag this Judgment!islamiah Institute of Technology Employees' Union and Ors. Vs. State o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR137; 2004(1)KarLJ416
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. Petitioner 1 is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The petitioners 2 to 26 are the members of first petitioner-Society. They are all the employees of the first petitioner-Society.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the affairs of the institute are being mismanaged and that the students and staff have been subjected to great injustice and that after 22 years of service, the staff have been driven to streets on account of whimsical attitude of the management, particularly by its present manager. There are complaints particularly of misappropriation of funds of the institution by the present manager. Therefore, they gave a representation to the Registrars of Co-operative Societies as per Annexure-D calling upon the him to initiate proceedings against the 7th respondent. However, their request has remained unanswered and therefore, they are constrained to file this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus directing responden...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal and anr. Vs. K. Sharadamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: 2004(3)KarLJ106
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This house rent revision petition under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-11-2002 passed in H.R.C. No. 10237 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the V Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayo Hall Unit (SCCH20), Bangalore.2. Under the impugned order, the Court below has allowed the petition of the petitioners/joint owners/landlords therein which had been filed under Section 21(1)(h), (i) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 and the petition having been allowed under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 ('the Act' for short), which has replaced the erstwhile Act during the pendency of the petition and the respondent-tenants having been directed to vacate and hand over possession of the petition schedule premises within sixty days from the date of the order, the aggrieved tenants are in revision before this Court.3. The eviction petitioners claiming to be the joint owners of th...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Development Authority, Rep. by Its Commissioner Vs. the Vysy ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-23-2003
Reported in: ILR2005KAR1419; 2005(2)KarLJ511
ORDERV.G. Sabhahit, J.1. This revision by the defendant in O.S.No. 7738/2002 on the file XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, is directed against the Order dated 3.1.2003 dismissing I.A.III filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.7738/2002 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore City on 16.11.2002 seeking for the following reliefs:'a) For declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the A and B schedule properties and/or to declare that the plaintiff has become absolute owner of A and B schedule properties by having perfected its title by adverse possession and limitation.b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its officials or officers or anybody claiming under it from interfering with the plaintiff's and also restraining them from demolishing the structure in the A and B schedule properties?c) to grant such other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit ...
Tag this Judgment!Bangalore Bullion Traders Vs. Minerals and Metal Trading Corporation L ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ555
1. Writ Appeal Nos. 5569 and 5822 of 1999 are preferred against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd July, 1999 in W.P. Nos. 12031 and 12028 of 1999, whereas, W.A. No. 6541 of 1999 is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5-7-1999 in W.P. No. 12074 of 1999. The appellants in these writ appeals are the petitioners in the above writ petitions. In the writ petitions, the appellants have questioned the legality of the action of the respondent-Corporation debiting certain sums of money from the appellants' accounts towards the differential customs duty for certain quantum of gold lifted by the appellants after 4-1-1999. The learned Single Judge at the stage of the admission, dismissed the writ petitions having opined that the dispute brought before the Court in the writ petitions involves disputed questions of fact and therefore, the proper course for the appellants is to seek remedy before competent Civil Court by filing civil suits. Hence, thes...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa Vs. H. Srinivas Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)KarLJ156
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This house rent revision petition filed under Section 46(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 is directed against the order dated 11-10-2002 passed on memo dated 4-2-2002 by the Trial Court in a pending HRC No. 1623 of 1997 on its file. The memo was filed praying for dismissing the eviction petition as not maintainable.2. The Trial Court having dismissed the memo and having declined to dismiss the eviction petition as prayed for, the aggrieved tenant is in revision petition before this Court.3. I have heard Sri N.G. Sreedhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel submits that the Trial Court should not have dismissed the memo particularly in view of the provisions of Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 read with Section 70(2)(b) of this Act. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the eviction petition which had been filed way back in the year 1997 and which had been actually presented on 25-5-1995 eve...
Tag this Judgment!Darga Estate Committee Vs. State of Karnataka by Secretary, Revenue De ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR1589; 2004(3)KarLJ363
ORDERSaldanha, J. 1. We have heard the petitioner's learned Counsel in this group of review petitions which are effectively directed against the earlier Division Bench order dated 8.10.2001 allowing the entire set of writ appeals and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby he had in turn interfered with the order of the Tribunal granting occupancy rights. The present petitioners who are before us are effectively the various Dharga Estate Committees and they were the third respondent to the earlier set of writ appeals. They were duly served and were represented by their learned Advocate and the earlier Division Bench order records the fact that they had failed to respond to any communications and consequently. The learned Advocate representing them were left with no option except to place this position before the Court. We shall presently point out however that this did not make any difference because the Division Bench has disposed off the appeals strictly on...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Naik B. Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Ksrtc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR955]; (2003)IILLJ697Kant
S.R. Nayak, J.1. This writ appeal is by the delinquent conductor. While serving in the establishment of the KSRTC, a charge memo was issued alleging that the appellant, despite collection of fares from six passengers did not issue tickets to them and did not account for the collection to the credit of the Corporation. After holding a regular domestic enquiry under the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (C and D) Regulations, 1971, the charges are held to have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, accepting the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry, dismissed the delinquent from service which led to the appellant instituting an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Mangalore.2. Before the Labour Court, parties were permitted to lead evidence. The Labour Court, after recording evidence and on appreciation of the same has come to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the appellant-petitioner has been, satisfactorily proved. Nevertheless, the Labour ...
Tag this Judgment!Muniyappa Vs. G. Hanumanthappa (Deceased) by L.R. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)KarLJ294
ORDERK. Bhakthavatsala, J.1. On 11-12-1991, it was ordered that the civil petition filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1990, be registered as writ petition and summon the records from the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural, Bangalore in Case No. Mis. 58 of 1989 along with the records in ALRA. 238 of 1987 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore District, and records in Case No. LRA(A) TC 1/667/74-75 on the file of Land Reforms Tribunal, Hoskote Taluk, Hoskote. On receipt of the above said records, it was registered as W.P. No. 25294 of 1993.2. The legal representative of respondent 1 is represented by Sri L.S. Venkatakrishna. In spite of service of notice on respondent 2 owner of the land in question, he is absent. Respondents 3 to 6 are represented by the learned Government Pleader Sri V. Bychappa.3. The ease on hand has got a chequered history. The petitioner in the above case is the tenant. Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Ennen Castings Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. M.M. Sundaresh and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Kant293; III(2003)BC286; [2003]114CompCas541(Kar); (2003)3CompLJ133(Karn); ILR2003KAR3490; 2003(4)KarLJ122; [2003]47SCL752(Kar)
N. Kumar, J. 1. C. A. No. 423 of 1998 is filed under Section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, for a direction to the respondents who are all the directors of the company under liquidation to pay the company a sum of Rs. 6,88,311.80 along with interest.2. The respondents have filed their statement of objections denying the liability. Thereafter the matter was referred to the commissioner to record the evidence. Accordingly, the commissioner recorded the evidence of the official liquidator and thereafter the case was set down for the evidence of the respodents. Sri M.M. Sundaresh, the first respondent in C. A. No. 423 of 1998 was examined on January 21, 2003. Respondents Nos. 7 and 6 requested the commissioner to permit them to cross-examine the said M.M. Sundaresh and also requested for cross-examination of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the event of they being examined. The said request of the respondents Nos. 7 and 6 was opposed by respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 5 contending that a co-respo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »