Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-19-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5599
ORDERManjula Chellur, J.1. The petitioner in HRRP 454/02 and 455/02 is none other than the tenant under the respondent landlord at premises No. 609, V. Main, (Sanchi Honnamma Road), Pipe Line, Srinagar, Banashankari I Stage, I Block, Bangalore-50. The entire premises consists of two non-residential and one residential portions. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a non-residential premises taken on lease for the purpose of conducting tuition. The brief facts that led to filing of these revisions petitions are as under:2. The respondent-landlord has instituted HRC Petition 10115/00 Under Section 21(1)(a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act i.e. on the ground of tenant being a chronic defaulter and also for bonafide and reasonable occupation on the ground that his brother is no more and he has to provide accommodation to the wife and children of his brother. In the adjacent portion itself, the petitioner is living along with his wife. Earlier, HRC 437/94 was instituted against...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-14-2005
Reported in : ILR2006KAR657
V. Gopalagowda, J.1. This review Petition is filed by respondents 5 to 7 in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 requesting this Court to review the judgment dt. 8/8/2005 passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 5472/2001 and further requested to set aside the same and dismiss the appeal with costs urging various legal contentions.2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to, as has been assigned in the Misc. First Appeal.3. The first ground urged in this petition is that no appeal lies Under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the BPT Act) against the order dt. 24/9/2001 passed in Misc. No. 26/1998 on the file of the District Judge, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar, rejecting the claim of second appellant to appoint him as the Trustee of the Trust of SREE Vinayaka Devaru Temple, Idagunji. Therefore the order passed by this Court allowing the appeal is without jurisdiction, hence the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-30-2005
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3555
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree by the District Judge in RA 326/1989 dated 28.2.2000 in setting aside the judgment and decree of the 1 Addl. Civil Judge, Belgaum in OS 105/1983 in so far as rejecting the relief of specific performance of the contract.2. Suit OS 105/1983 was filed by plaintiff/respondent before the Civil Judge, Belgaum for specific performance of contract against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., property in CTS 1438/1 measuring 91 x 14 sq.mtrs situate at Belgaum and also for a direction to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff accepting Rs. 17,000/- and put the plaintiff in possession of the property and in the alternative, to pass a decree for refund of earnest money of Rs. 12,000/- with interest and to award compensation.3. Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 are the owners of the suit property and defendant 4 is the general power of attorney holder for defend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-09-2005
Reported in : ILR2006KAR2970
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged in this revision petition the order passed by X Additional Small Causes Judge at Bangalore in HRC No. 1191/96 dismissing the petition filed under Section 27(2)(r) of the Karnataka Rent Act 1999.2. The petitioner is the owner of property bearing no. 69/1, (old) 137/1 situated at 8th cross road, Margosa road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3. In the ground floor of the said premises there were four shops. Deceased respondent Sri. N. Narasinga Rao was in occupation of one shop which is more particularly described in the schedule to the eviction petition and hereinafter referred to as schedule shop. The rent of the premises was Rs. 250/-, The petitioner filed an eviction petition against all the four tenants under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act 1961 on the ground that the entire building is in a dilapidated condition, it requires to be demolished and a new construction is to be put up for the benefit and requirement of his grown...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-07-2005
Reported in : 2005(6)KarLJ636
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. These intra-Court appeals are filed by the unsuccessful petitioners assailing the order dated 27-3-1998 passed in W.P. No. 21413 of 1994 and batch (Dr. Radhakrishna Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hosur, Hubli and Ors. v. Government of Karnataka and Ors., 1999(2) Kar. L.J. 637 : ILR 1998 Kar. 3794; order dated 30-3-1998 in W.P. No. 19748 of 1997; order dated 25-9-1998 in W.P. No. 28208 of 1998; order dated 6-10-1998 in W.P. No. 22106 of 1996; order dated 24-11-1999 in W.P. No. 4839 of 1997; order dated 17-12-1999 in W.P. No. 44864 of 1999; order dated 27-1-2000 in W.P. No. 44728 of 1999; order dated 6-10-2003 in W.P. No. 27435 of 2003 and order dated 21-11-2000 in W.P. No. 28014 of 1999 by learned Single Judge of this Court, upholding the constitutional validity of sub- section (5) of Section 32 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'Act'), while declining to declare the petitioners to be owners of the civic amenity sites and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-19-2005
Reported in : [2006(110)FLR527]; (2006)ILLJ835Kant
ORDERN. Kumar, J. 1. These two writ petitions are taken up for consideration together, as common question of law is involved though the impugned orders are different.2. The petitioner is a Textile Spinning Mills having around 146 permanent workmen on its rolls. They are in the business for the last 37 years. Because of recession in the textile industry it is facing severe financial crisis for the last seven years. The petitioner owes the Corporation Bank Rs 72,95,000-00. They are unable to clear the ESI and PF dues. The accumulated loss of the company is to the tune of Rs. 2,02,67,767-00 as on March 31, 2003. The Company stopped production intermittently for want of raw materials. It could not run the mill, with the result production was stopped totally from March, 1999. They approached the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short BIFR). Their application was registered and the petitioner was declared as a sick industrial company under the provisions of Sick Industr...
Tag this Judgment!