Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-18-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Kant174; 1987(2)KarLJ394
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dt. 27th Sep. 1977, passed in O.S.No. 29/75 on the file of the Civil Judge, Gadag. The appellant before us is the 1st defendant. In the course of this Judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.2. The suit was one for partition brought by the plaintiff, who is respondent 1 here. The suit plea was that she was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties belonging to her deceased father and that the 1st defendant was her step brother and defendants 2 and 3 were her step sisters, being the son and daughters of her deceased father through his second wife. She sought partition by metes and bounds and separate possession.3. The 1st defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement. While admitting the relationship of the defendants and the plaintiff, the 1st defendant resisted the claim on the ground that after the death of his father on the advice o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-10-1987
Reported in : AIR1987Kant186; ILR1987KAR1286; 1987(2)KarLJ9
Prem Chand Jain, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to be decided by a larger Bench: -'(1) Whether a revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure lies to the High Court from a revisional order made by a District Judge under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, as substituted by Karnataka Act 31 of 1975?(2) Whether the ruling of the Full Bench of this Court in Krishnaji Venkatesh Shirodkar v. Gurupad Shivram Kavalekar (ILR (1978) 2 Karnataka 1585) requires reconsideration in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad : [1980]3SCR32 ?'2. This petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution calling in question the legality of the order made by the District Judge under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). An office objection was raised as to how in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Krishnaji Venkatesh Shi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-10-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Kant194; ILR1987KAR3679; 1987(3)KarLJ549
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. In W.P. No. 23/1986, the prayer of the petitioner is to 'quash' the provisions of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) specially Ss. 29, 21(1) (a) and 31 of the Act. There is also a prayer to direct the State to enact a uniform legislation for the litigants in the State etc. There was also a prayer for striking down Act 31 of 1975 to the extent of it deleting the provisions for appeal under S. 48.2. Petitioner states that he applied for allotment of a premises under the provisions of the Act, which was opposed by the then landlord. The writ petition proceeds on the assumption that he is the tenant against whom eviction proceedings are pending on the file of the Court of 19th Addl. Small Causes, Bangalore. The writ petition is sketchy about the facts. It straightway attacks the provisions of the Act as discriminatory because, litigants in Bangalore are subjected to a discriminatory treatment in the matter of forum. The eviction proceedings in B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-31-1987
Reported in : ILR1989KAR768; 1987(3)KarLJ477
Bopanna, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order of Rama Jois, J. in Writ Petitions 5320 of 1980 and other connected Writ Petitions disposed of on 11-4-1985. By that order the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions of the Appellants/Petitioners on the ground that these are not fit cases for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Appellants are all students who had taken their examinations in various subjects in the P.U.C. examination conducted by the Pre-University Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in the month of April, 1982. The results of the examination were announced in the month of June, 1982. Each of the appellants had failed in one or other subjects and consequently, they failed in the examination. After the results were announced, they invoked the provisions of Rule 38 of the Rules relating to Pre-University Examinations published by the State Government in Notification No. MED 119 UDC ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-26-1987
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2942; [1988]68STC3(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are all dealers registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 14 of 1987, published in the Karnataka Gazette of April 2, 1987, the definition of the 'year' in section 2(1)(x) of the Act underwent a change. According to the amended definition, 'year' means the year commencing on the first day of April. This amendment was brought into effect from the 1st day of April, 1987. 'year' as defined earlier, read as follows : ''year' means the financial year commencing on the first day of April; but for purposes of assessment a dealer may, at his option, declare that he will adopt the year for which the accounts of that dealer are ordinarily maintained in his books and where no such declaration is made, the year commencing on the first of April and ending on the 31st of March shall be reckoned as the assessment year : Provided that a regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-27-1987
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2617
Kulkarni, J.1. This is an appeal by the Judgment Debtor against the order dated 4th April 1978 passed by the Civil Judge, Uttara Hanmada, Karwar, in Miscellaneous Case No. 9 of 1972 dismissing the same.2. The decree-holder had filed a Suit in O.S. 177/1942 OH the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karwar. A preliminary decree was passed in the said Suit on 24-10-1944. Final decree was passed on 20th of April 1951. There was an Appeal in C.A. No. 142/1951. Thereafter the matter was taken to the High Court. It appears from the Execution petition, that there was a compromise decree in R.S.A. No. 303/1953 and it is this compromise decree that is being executed now. The decree-holder sued out the present execution in Execution Case No. 1/1969 and the cause notice was issued under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC.3. The judgment-debtor, as can be seen from the order-sheet, raised various contentions. On 18-9-1969 an order was passed by the Executing Court to the following effect :'Shri V. G. Hegd...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-29-1987
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2078
ORDERBopanna, J.1. This Writ Petition completes the triology of cases between the Petitioner/Union and the Cement Manufacturers' Association (the 2nd respondent herein) and the Indian National Cement and Allied Workers Federation (the 4th respondent herein). The petitioner had approached this Court earlier in the year 1978 in Writ Petition No. 7008 of 1981. But, this Court did not grant the reliefs prayed for since the petitioner had approached this Court at a belated stage. The petitioner approached this Court again in Writ Petition No. 6346 of 1982 challenging the validity of the Notification made by the Central Government under Section 10A(3A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) as also the award made by the Arbitrators chosen by the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent respectively on the demands raised by the 4th respondent. This Court by its Order dated 6-7-1984 quashed the Notification impugned therein and issued a Writ in the nature of mandamus to the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-14-1987
Reported in : AIR1989Kant57
ORDER1. Petitioners are the Trustees of a Temple situated in Udupi. They challenge the letter of the 2nd respondent issued to the Ist respondent. In this, the 2nd respondent stated that he was not recognising the present Trustees as Trustees of the temple. He says that, on 10- 11-1986, proper publication before the constitution of the Board of Trustees, was suggested and that Several devotees have complained about the election of these Trustees as illegal. Therefore, 2nd respondent slated that for the purpose of constituting a fresh Board of Trustees, the meeting of the devotees may be called for which he directed wide publicity as suggested therein. Copy of this letter dated 28-2-1987 was enclosed by the Ist respondent to his letter dt. 6-3-1987 addressed to the Managing Trustee. The 1st respondent pointed out the expectations expressed by the 2nd respondent in his letter about due publicity for election of Trustees and sought compliance with the same.2. Petitioners question these dir...
Tag this Judgment!