Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-23-1979
Reported in : 1980(1)KarLJ200; (1980)ILLJ123Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. In these four writ appeals, preferred against the orders of the single Judge dismissing the four writ petitions presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, by registered owners of coffee estates under the Indian Coffee Act, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether the Coffee Board, is an industry carried on by or under the authority of any Department of the Central Government or is an institution established not for purposes of profit, and consequently excepted from the application of the Payment of Bonus Act in view of cls. (iv) and (v) (c), respectively, of S. 32 of the Act ?' 2. The appellants are registered owners of coffee estates under the Act. The first respondent-Coffee Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has been brought into existence by the Act. With the approval of the Central Government, the Board decided to pay bonus to its employees under the provisions of the Payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-20-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Kant107; ILR1979KAR1024; 1982(2)KarLJ537
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. A Bench of this Court has referred the following questions for opinion of a Full Bench:(1) Where the issue regarding the tenancy framed in a suit has been referred to and answered by the Munsiff-Tribunal prior to the coming into force of Act I of 1974 and the decision has been affirmed by the appellate authority, namely, the District Judge also prior to the coming into force of Act I of 1974 and has become. Final, whether such an issue should again be referred to the Tribunal consequent on the amendment of the provisions of Section 91 of Act I of 1974?(2) Is the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge in this case to dispose of the suit in accordance 'with the decision of the District Judge given under Section 118 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act on the question of tenancy affected by Act 31 of 1974''?2. The facts are fully set out in the order of reference, and for the purpose of our decision, we may recapitulate only those which are relevant.The petitioners are legal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-28-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Kant122
Chandrashekhar, C.J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been referred to a Division Bench.2. This is the second round of litigation challenging amalgamation of cooperative societies. In. these petitions, originally the validity of Karnataka Ordinance No. 2 of 1978 had been impugned. Since that Ordinance has been replaced by the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act No. 14 of 1978) (hereinafter, referred to as the Amendment Act), the prayer in most of these petitions, has been amended so as to impugn the validity of the. Amendment Act. In some of these petitions, the constitutionality of Section 14-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has also been impugned.3. Before dealing with the rival contentions of learned counsel, it is necessary to set out the historical background of the impugned Amendment Act,4. After the formation of New State of Mysore (Karnataka) on re-organization...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-22-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Kant154
ORDER1. These writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by a common order as they involve common questions of law.W. P. No. 410/77: In this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner who has purchased the agricultural land measuring 2 acres 31 guntas in Sy. No, 62 of Belur, Taluk Belur, district Hassan, from the 3rd respondent under a registered sale deed dated 18-7-1968, has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sakaleshpur Sub Division, Sakaleshpur, in Case No. DRC. 132/766-77, 'dated 28-10-1976 allowing the application filed by the 3rd respondent under Section 4(f) of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and further directing the petitioner to hand over the possession to the land in question to the 3rd respondent.2. Before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a registered sale-deed dated 18-7-1968 and also another registered document of the same date executed by the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-02-1979
Reported in : AIR1979Kant117; ILR1979KAR1354; 1979(1)KarLJ302
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 69/1976 on the file of the Civil Judge at Raichur. That was a suit filed by the appellants, who constitute a partnership firm, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 28,805.40 with interest form the date of suit and for costs etc., from the defendant, which is a co-operative Marketing Society, in respect of certain goods alleged to have been supplied to the defendant. The suit was being contested by the Society. The suit was filed on 18-10-1976. Subsequently, it transpired that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gulbarga Division, ordered the winding up of the Society by his order dated 17-6-1977. Thereupon, the defendant filed an application I. A. No. II before the Civil Judge contending that as an order for winding up has been made and a Liquidator appointed, the Court lost jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit should be dismissed. This application I. A. No. II was resisted by the plaintiffs. It was conte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-02-1979
Reported in : AIR1979Kant182; ILR1979KAR1817; 1979(1)KarLJ333
1. This appeal is by the claimant and is directed against the order dated 31-8-1978, passed by the Civil Judge, U. K., Karwar, in Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 1978 on his file, dismissing the application filed by the appellant to release the truck bearing registration No. MEL 4330 from attachment. 2. The Syndicate Bank, Ankola, obtained a decree as per Exhibit D-2 in O. S. No. 6 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, against the three defendants named therein and under the decree, it was contemplated that as far as possible the plaintiff should make attempts to recover the loan by proceeding against the truck of defendant 1B, viz., MEL 4330 and the defendant 2 should help the plaintiff in such recovery. If, however, that was not possible or the amount remained unsatisfied, the plaintiff was free to proceed against the suit truck of defendant 2 as also the other properties of the defendants. Under the decree, the truck belonging to defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-02-1979
Reported in : AIR1979Kant208; ILR1979KAR1008; 1979(1)KarLJ240
Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. A Division Bench of this court while doubting the correctness of the decision in Ningappa Rangappa Sonnavalkar v. The Munsiff, Gokak (1968) 2 Mys LJ 620 has referred the following question to a Full Bench for opinion:-'Whether in an election petition filed by a candidate at an election to a Village Panchayat under the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, a recount of votes can be granted by the Munsiff without a preliminary inquiry in which he is prima facie satisfied that in order to decide a dispute between the parties, inspection of ballot papers and recount thereof are necessary?'2. Shortly stated, the facts are these:In the election held on 8th July, 1978 to the Tayalur Group Panchayat, the petitioner and four others were declared elected. Mumtaz Ahmed-respondent-3-was one of the defeated candidates. He challenged the election of the petitioner before the Munsiff at Kolar under S. 13 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-17-1979
Reported in : AIR1981Kant103
Acts/Rules/Orders: Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 - Section 5(2); Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 - Sections 2(15), 3 and 4(3)OPINION Malimath, J. 1. The Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice .and Justice Bopanna has referred the following question for the opinion of the Full Bench; 'If any area has been newly added to any village, municipal area or notified area specified in Schedule 11 to the Karnataka Rent Control Act. 1961, by means of an appropriate, notification issued under the provisions of the law governing municipalities or village Panchayats and Local Boards, is a separate notification under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of that Act necessary to make the provisions of that Act applicable to that newly added area?'2. A Division Bench of this Cour4, of which one of us was a member, has answered this question in the affirmative in Balwant Shamrao Deshrande v. Sadashiv Haripant Kulkarrd, . But the referring Bench, felt that the, said decision requires re-considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-20-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Kant130
ORDER1. As common questions of law arise for determination in these cases. I propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. Among others, the petitioners, who own lea than five powerlooms claim to be solely engaged in the manufacture of coloured sarees in the several parts of Karnataka State but with considerable concentration at places like Banahatti, Rabkavi, Terdal, Mahalingapur and some other places of Bijapur, Dharwar and Belgaum Districts. 3. In exercise of the powers conferred on him by Clause 20 f the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order 1948 (hereinafter -referred to as the Control Order), the joint Textile Commissioner, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') by Notifications Nos. CER/10/77 and CER/2/77 dated 15th April. 1977, has issued various directions regulating the production of cotton textiles by different manufacturers in the country to be In force till 31-8-1982. By one of the directions, owners of less than five powerlooms are prohibited fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-12-1979
Reported in : AIR1980Kant95
Venkatachaliah, J.1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred the following question of law arising under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 for the opinion of the Full Bench.'Whether a property which was an agricultural land at the time of letting and had ceased to be agricultural land an the date of the petition for eviction is a 'Premises' within the meaning of Section 3 (n) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, and would attract provisions of Sections of Section 21 of the Act?''2. The matter arises out of Proceedings for eviction under proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act') instituted by the petitioner against respondents in H. R. C. No. 287 of 1968 on the file of the Mummify, Hubble, respecting certain lands which, at the time of letting, were agricultural lands; but, which as on the date of institution of the Proceedings came within the limits of Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation and used by the lesse...
Tag this Judgment!