Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-22-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Kant236; ILR1989KAR3104; 1989(3)KarLJ497
1. Appellant was the plaintiff in the original suit before the trial Court and being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of that Court dismissing his suit for the reliefs claimed therein he has approached this Court. Respondents 1 and 2 are wife and husband respectively who were defendants 1 and 2 in the Court below. The 3rd respondent-defendant 3 is the Bangalore City Corporation. Parties would be referred to in this appeal as described in the original suit. Plaintiff and defendant 2 are owners in possession of the respective properties which are situated side by side. In fact it is the 1st defendant who is the owner of their property having inherited the same from her father Krishna Rao. The plaintiff was residing for some years prior to the suit at Nigeria on an assignment from the Government of India.His nephew living in his house property was managing it. When the 1st defendant succeeded to the estate of her father the property by the side of the plaintiff's property was only a g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-25-1989
Reported in : AIR1990Kant182; ILR1989KAR1788
ORDER1. Some of the petitioners are saved operators and the remaining are theoperators on the Inter-State Routes. Each one of them has applied for renewal of their stage carriage permits before the second respondent. The 4th respondent-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation in short) has also made applications on each one of the routes concerned herein for grant of permits. Thus the applications filed by the petitioners for renewal of their permits and the applications filed by the the 4th respondent for grant of permits on the very routes are pending before the second respondent. At this stage the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of prohibition against the Chairman of the second respondent on the ground that she being a member of the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent, is disqualified in Saw to function either as a member or as the Chairman the second respondent. In addition to this prayer there are various other prayers made in each one of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-17-1989
Reported in : [1991]71CompCas714(Kar); ILR1989KAR3343
ORDERK. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated July 4/20, 1988 (annexure A), whereby the Karnataka state Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') in exercise of its power under section 29 of the State financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), proceeded to recover a sum of Rs. 48,473. The said order declares that the assets of the industrial concern of the petitioner are vested with the Corporation and two officers of the Corporation are authorised to take possession of the said assets, Annexure B, Mahazar, under which possession was taken by the said authorised persons is dated July 21, 1988;it is also challenged in this writ petition. The further prayer is for a direction to hand over the assets to the petitioner and also for a declaration that section 29 of the Act is illegal and void. 2. The petitioner took over the industrial concern from the previous owners. Admittedly the petitioner-concern ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-16-1989
Reported in : ILR1990KAR448
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is the Regional Controller, National Airports Authority, Santa Cruz, Bombay. He challenges the order passed by the II Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, on 18th April 1987, in Misc. Case No. 16/1986. This Revision Petition is filed on 26th October 1989; along with the Revision Petition, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and has also filed an application for staying the impugned order. There is a delay of 831 days.2. Under the High Court Rules this revision could not be registered unless the delay is condoned. Mr. Anant Mandagi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decree-holder has filed execution case No. 167/1987 seeking execution of the modified award and if stay is not granted, he will suffer irreparable injury. He submitted that there is urgency in the matter and an interim order should be issued without insisting on the notice being issued to the respondents, pending I.A.I - for co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-18-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR3455; 1990(1)KarLJ3
ORDERRama Jois, Ag. C.J. 1. This appeal is presented by the appellant aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing his Writ Petition.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these:-The appellant joined service in the Prisons Department of the State of Karnataka as Second Division Clerk in the year 1959. He was promoted as First Division Clerk in the year 1976 and was posted to work as Store Keeper in the Central Prison, Bellary. A Memo dated 2nd March 1981 was issued to the appellant, which reads:-'Sub: Excess and shortages noticed in respect of raw materials and Manufactured articles as on 1-5-80 at the time of handing over charge by V. Srinivasa Rao F.D.C. to Sri C. Rameshan, F.D.C.Ref: This Office Memo No. FCT/3882/80 dated 15-10-80.2. Your reply dated 16-12-1980.3.This Office Memo FCT/4320/80 dated 2-12-80.4.This Office Memo No. 4875/80 dated 2-1-81.5. Letter No. EST/251/80-81 dated 31-1-81 of the Superintendent, District Prison, Bijapur. You, Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-26-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR3292; 1989(2)KarLJ475
Rama Jois, Ag. C.J. 1. These appeals are presented by the Bangalore University, against the order of the learned Single Judge quashing the orders passed against respondents-1 to 25 by which the performance of each of them in the February-March, 1989 B.E. Degree Examination was cancelled.2. The facts of the case in brief are these: Or. 13-3-1989 students of B.M.S. Engineering College, Bangalore, were answering the question papers on the subject called Hydrology and Irrigation, in Room No. 11 of the College. The examination commenced from 2.00 ' P.M. It appears, that when the examination was going on, a Vigilance Flying Squad appointed by the University to check the menace of mass malpractice, at all the examinations of the University, made a surprise entry into the aforesaid examination room at about 3.30 p.m. The Squad gave a report of the same date to the University Registrar (Evaluation), giving the names of the students who according to the Squad were found indulging in examination ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-31-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1701; 1989(2)KarLJ548
Ad-interim ex parte injunction granted to plaintiff preventing interference with performance of duties and functions as Chara Charajangama Pattadhikari and Uttaradhikari to the office of Matadhipathi of Sri Siddaganga Mutt, being vacated after hearing both sides; in Appeal: Held:(i) Grant of ad-interim injunction has to course through the following slots: (i) prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; (iii) irreparable injury to - the plaintiff, and (iv) lastly, all injunctions- being absolutely discretionary in nature whether there was any overriding consideration that supported the refusal of the injunction by the Court-below. (ii) The existence of a prima facie casein the matter of granting injunction is reallythe harbinger or the all clear sign to go aheadin investigating other aspects of the questiongoverning the grant or refusal of injunction.If there was no prima facie case at all or thecase put forward was so weak and tainted havingvery little prospect of being accepted by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-15-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1741; 1989(2)KarLJ295
..... v. patil's case. the validity of section 30a of the act was challenged on the ground that it conferred arbitrary power on the state government by excluding the principles of natural justice before an order could be made under section 30a of the act. the division bench of this court in para-15 of its judgment has observed as follows:'section 30a vests a power in the state government to appoint a special officer in the place of the committee of management. condition precedent for the exercise of the power ..... 1956, it is. manifest that the appellant had ample reason for being satisfied that the inhabitants of limassol 'had adequate opportunity of understanding the subject-matter of the inquiry and of making representations thereon,' and it is to be noted that the opportunity given of making representations had the widespread results set out in para-9 of ..... cof 83 dated 25-1-1983 superseded the board of management of the society under section 30a of the act and appointed a deputy commissioner as the special officer. that order of the government was challenged in writ petition no. 1968 of 1983 by the 2nd petitioner. this court by its order dated 31-1-1983 ..... state. they have relied on a decision of this court in writ petition nos. 9413 to 9235 of 1988 n.g. naganna gowda v. state and ors. and have quoted the observations made by the learned judge of this court in that case as follows:'the co-operative movement in its very concept is democratic and voluntary. its regulation is to see that in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-23-1989
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1159; ILR1989KAR3572; 1990(1)KarLJ201
Navadgi, J.1. The proceedings in the top noted matter have been registered on the basis of the order dated October 11, 1984 made by a Division Bench of this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 206/80. The proceedings came to be registered and initiated against Y. K. Subbanna, Kamaiah, K. Jayaramm, Y. K. Ramakrishna, Smt. Marakka and Smt. Shantamma - Accused Nos. 1 to 6 respectively - who would be hereinafter referred to as accused with reference to their respective array, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the following circumstances : 2. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are related to each other. Their relationship inter se is as under : Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are to sons of accused No. 2. Accused No. 5 is the wife of accused No. 2. Accused No. 6 is the wife of accused No. 4. 3. Accused No. 1 was the plaintiff in the original suit No. 20 of 1972. The suit was for partition and separate possession of his (accused No. 1's) share in the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-08-1989
Reported in : ILR1989KAR39
ORDERK.A. Swami, J 1. RELIEFS: .These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking various reliefs. The reliefs sought for in W.P.Nos. 8546 to 8548/88 also cover the reliefs sought for in W.P.No. 15377/88. Therefore, the reliefs sought for in W.P.No. 15377/88 are not specifically stated. Further in a public interest petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the reliefs can be moulded according to the findings arrived at. The objection as to absence of a specific prayer in a public interest petition as in a private interest litigation does nor assume any importance. The reliefs sought for in W.P.Nos. 8546 to 8548/88 as follows:'Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue:a) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action for forfeiture of the land for contravention of Section 79 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act;b) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to acquire the land for the purpose...
Tag this Judgment!