Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-16-1985
Reported in : ILR1986KAR532
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases between one and the same contesting parties in relation to several agricultural lands are closely inter-connected, they can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. We, therefore propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. During the period from 1942 to 1945 one Hariyachar of Coimbator City of Tamilnadu State, a Hindu by religion and a Chartered Accountant by profession, with a passion for agriculture and horticulture, bought a number of agricultural lands bearing different survey numbers and extents situated at Varuna, Janthigalli and Dandikere villages of Mysore Taluk, Mysore District, in all measuring about 120 acres from their previous owners for valuable consideration. All those lands except Survey No. 208 of Janthigalli village measuring about 10 acres, are contiguous to each other and form one compact block of 110 acres and we will hereafter refer to the area of 110 acres and Sy. No. 208...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-13-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR1802; 1985(2)KarLJ541
1. As common questions of law arise for determination in all these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this common Judgment. 2. For different excise years commencing on the 1st of July of every calendar year and ending on the 30th June of the succeeding calendar year, the appellants were the highest bidders of the right to vend country liquor like toddy or arrack for one or the other revenue District/Taluka or part of them as is the case, in the excise tender-cum-auctions held for that purpose under the Karnataka Excise Act of 1965 (Karnataka Act 21 of 1966) ('the Act') and the Karnataka Excise (Lease of the Right of Retail Vend of Liquors) Rules 1969 ('1969 Rules') framed thereunder. On the final acceptance of their bids by Government, the appellants executed 'Lease Deeds' or written contracts with Government inter alia agreeing to pay shop rentals or 'kists' every month on or before the agreed dates and were thereafter vending liquor in the approved shops. 3. In exercise of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-26-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR2711
ORDERPuttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) these cases were posted before a Division Bench for disposal.2. As the questions that arise for determination in these cases are common or inter-connected, we propose to dispose of them by a common order. In order to appreciate the questions that arise for determination, we will first notice the facts of the cases.3-1. W.Ps. Nos. 8302 and 8303 of 1980: Noorulla khan of Kanakapura Town, the original petitioner, who is now arrayed as petitioner-1, to be hereafter referred to as the petitioner, was the registered owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration No. MYM 9091 classified as an'Omnibus' with a seating capacity of 15+1 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act No. IV of 1939) (MV Act) and subjected to tax on that basis under Part-A Entry 7b of the Schedule to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1957 (Karnataka Act No. 35 of 1957) ('the Act'). The vehicle which was not covered by a permit under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-15-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3189; 1985(2)KarLJ333
Kudoor, J.1. R.F.A. No. 370/1982 is against the decree in O. S. No. 10462/1980 and R.F.A. No. 371/1982 is against the decree in O.S. No. 5673/1980 of even date 31-10-1982 arising out of a common judgment passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appellant in both the appeals is one T.K. Bose, who isthe sole defendant in O.S. No. 10462/1980 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5673/1980.2. O.S. No. 5673/1980 is a suit for declaration that the plaintiff continues to be the Director and Chairman of the 1st defendant- . Sree Venkatesha Electrical Industries (Private) Limited- (for short the 'Company'), that the office of the Directorship of the Company held by the plaintiff has not fallen vacant under clause (i) of sub-section (l) of Section 283 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act'), that the proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company held on 24-10-1980 are null and void, that defendant-3 was not validly appointed as a Director of the Company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-18-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3774; 1985(2)KarLJ520
ORDERMahendra, J1.These appeals are by (the appellants who were) the respondents and are directed against the order dated 13-9-1984 of Chandrakantaraj Urs, J: allowing Writ Petition No. 21899 of 1980 filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein who were the petitioners therein. Writ Appeal No. 2073 of 1984 is filed by one Dr. K. Ranga, who was respondent-2 and Writ Appeal No. 2075 of 1984 is filed by the Bangalore University which was respondent 1 in the said Writ Petition. In the course of our order we will refer to the parties to their array in the original Writ Petition.2. The Bangalore University by its Notification Annexure B dated 30-4-1977 invited applications from qualified candidates for appointment to posts in the various Departments of the University including a post of Professor of Civil Engineering in the Department of Civil Engineering, Dr. B.M. Rajashekara the third petitioner,Dr. Siddappa the fourth petitioner, Dr. Ranga the 2nd respondent and several others applied for the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-29-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Kant219; ILR1985KAR2362; 1985(2)KarLJ287
ORDER1. This revision petition is by the tenant against the order of the learned District Judge, Belgaum, in HRC. RP. No. 137/82 on his file.2. The revision before the District Judge was preferred by the unsuccessful landlord who had sought eviction in the Court of the Munsiff under S. 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petition was presented by the landlord on the ground that he required the same for his own bona fide use and occupation.3. Undisputed facts of the case were that the landlord was living in the upstairs portion while the tenant was occupying the downstairs portion Landlord claimed that they were all ten in number consisting of himself his wife, adoptive mother of the landlord, his two natural brothers and their wives and their children and in order to make their living comfortable they needed the downstairs portion also for the landlord's use and occupation. While the learned Munsiff conceded that landlord was living -w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-01-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR933
ORDERMalimath, C. J.1. This appeal is by the State Government challenging the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 4-5-1978 in Writ Petition No. 6550/77.2. The Respondent made an application to the State Government under Section 5 of the Karnataka State Servant (Determination of Age)Act,I974(hereinafter referred to as the Act,) for alteration of his date of birth from 20-9-1922 to 15-2-1923. For the purpose of holding an inquiry, the State Government appointed, under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, the second appellant as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer held an inquiry and after giving an opportunity of showing cause in the matter to the Respondent, submitted his report agreeing with the request of the Respondent for alteration of his date of birth- The State Government, however, disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and passed an order on 30-6-1977 rejecting the Respondent's application. The Respondent challenged the said order of the State Government i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-30-1985
Reported in : AIR1986Kant77; ILR1986KAR1130
1. Both the advocates submitted that the appeal itself may be heard on merits. Accordingly the arguments on merits of the appeal advanced by both the advocates were heard and the appeal is disposed of finally with the consent of both the advocates.This is a plaintiffs appeal directed against the order dated 31-7-1985 passed by the 12th Additional City Civil Judge, (City Civil Court), Bangalore City, in 0. S. No. 633 of 1984 dismissing 1. A. No. I filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules I and 2, C. P. C. and allowing 1. A. No. 2 filed by the defendant under Order 39, Rule 4, C. P. C. and thereby dissolving the ad interim temporary injunction.2. R. S. No. 81 of Kethamaranahall village, Rajajinaga III Stage, was an inam land. It was in possession and enjoyment of Archaka Srinivasaiah singh 1931. The said Srinivasaiah had applied to the Special Deputy Commissioner of Inams Abolition for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the said land in his favour. On 4-2-1972, the said Srinivas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-05-1985
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3381; 1985(2)KarLJ453
Venkatachaliah, J.1. This appeal arising out of a Matrimonial Cause, is by the husband, who along with the Respondent-wife had filed a joint-petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) and is directed against the order dated 6-2-1985 made inM.C. No. 15 of 1984, on the file of the Civil Judge, Udupi, rejecting the petition. The wife is arrayed as Respondent; but there is no contest in this appeal.2. In their petition the parties averred that their marriage was solemnised on 11-3-1979 in accordance with the Hindu Shastraic rights at Sri Janardhana Devaru Temple at Pangala; that they lived as man and wife at the appellant's house at Krishnarajanagar in Mysore District till 17-9-1979; that they have no issues by the marriage; that thereafter they were not able to live together; and that Respondent has since been staying-away with her parents at Mallur villageof Udupi Taluk. It was further averred that the parties had mutually...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-15-1985
Reported in : ILR1986KAR1574
ORDERKudoor, J.1. In this Writ Petition one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, one Krishna Bhat, owner of Petition-A' Schedule properties, has sought for a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order quashing the order dated 16-11-1981 Annexure-A, passed by the 1st respondent-Land Tribunal, Bantwal, granting occupancy fight in respect of 'A' Schedule properties in favour of the 3rd respondent-Narayana Gowda.2. The matter arises in this way :The 3rd respondent made an application on 23-8-1974 to the Land Tribunal, Bantwal, in Form-7 as required under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, claiming occupancy right in respect of S. No. 8/9A of Vittal Padnur Village of Bantwal Taluk belonging to one Mahalinga Bhatta as could be seen from the entry made in the General Daily Register (GDR) at Sl. No. 4712. In the year 1980, the 3rd respondent appeared to have filed a copy of Form-7 application said to be the copy of the application made by hi...
Tag this Judgment!