Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-13-1999
Reported in : ILR2000KAR2437; 2000(4)KarLJ319
ORDER1. The suit for recovery of unpaid purchase money was decreed by the Trial Court and the decree is resisted and challenged in this revision by the defendant-purchaser, which is at Ex. P. 2. Ex. P. 2 reads as follows:'This agreement dated 29th October, 1979 in favour of M.R. Umakanth, s/o M.V. Ramaiah, residing at Door No. 2023, Mandi-mohallha, Turabali Street, Mysore by S.I. Kamaruddin Shah, s/o Late Syed Mohiddin, residing in the same number. This day i.e., 29-10-1979, I have purchased your house for consideration. In the said house, one Sri S. Narayana is residing as mortgagee and the mortgage period is one year and one month more. Immediately after vacation of the premises by the mortgagee and taking possession by me, I will pay Rs. 5,000-00 (Rupees Five Thousand only) and take an acknowledgement (shara) from you and take back this agreement. Executed the agreement accordingly'. That being the case, the Trial Court ought to have connected those payments to the suit transaction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-15-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)KarLJ520
ORDER1. For the purpose of disposing of these cases, we narrate the facts in W.P. No. 5912 of 1996 out of which W.A. No. 654 of 1998 arises.2. The appellants are the quarry owners and they were granted quarrying lease and lease deeds were executed. Due to some delay before the quarrying started, some of the appellants had to apply for renewal of the lease. As no order was passed, writ petitions were filed in this Court. Meanwhile, the rules were amended. Therefore, this Court directed the appellants to file a application as per the amended rules and directed the respondents to consider the applications within a time frame. Accordingly, applications were made. As the renewal applications were not considered, again writ petitions were filed and there was an interim order in favour of the appellants. Meanwhile, by an order dated 31-1-1996, the application for renewal of licence for quarrying made by the appellants was rejected by the authorities concerned. In the counter filed by the resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-22-1999
Reported in : ILR1999KAR1715; 1999(5)KarLJ193
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions assailing the constitutional validity of Section 26(1)(c) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (in short, 'the KMC Act') and the action of the respondent organizations in refusing permission for contesting the election for Councillors of Municipal Corporation, Bangalore.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 43146 of 1995 is a workman employed in Bharat Earth Movers Limited, Bangalore Complex. Bharat Earth Movers is a Public Sector Establishment engaged in the manufacture of earth moving equipments and Railway Coaches. The shares of this Company are held in the name of the President of India and the same is 'State' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's application seeking permission to contest in the Bangalore City Corporation Elections came to be rejected.3. Petitioner Smt. C. Chandramma, in W.P. No. 28766 of 1996 is an employee working as Senior Office Assistant in M/s. Indian Telephone Indus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-22-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)KarLJ46
ORDER1. M/s. Shankar Transport Company Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Koppa-Kadur in Chickmagalur District, had been running transport business having a fleet of passenger buses. Labour dispute started, leading to strike and lock out. As the settlement eventually reached as Annexure-B would show, the management of Shankar Transport Company had decided to close down the establishment permanently, but, due to intervention of well wishers, a settlement was amicably reached before the Conciliation Officer, by which, five independent entities came into existence, four partnership concerns and the fifth one, an organisation of the employees of the Shankar Transport Company itself. The buses of Shankar Transport Company were sold to the said five concerns viz., 12 buses to one concern, 13 buses to another concern, 8 buses to the 3rd concern, 15 buses to the 4th concern and 13 buses to the employees concern, The terms of settlement provided that the empl...
Tag this Judgment!