Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-31-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR670
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 14th December 1979 passed in O.S. No. 879/1977 by the learned VII Additional Civil Judge Bangalore City.2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. The respondent is the defendant. In this Judgment, the appellants will be referred as the plaintiffs and the respondent as the defendant.3. The suit premises is a Municipal Site bearing No. 25, measuring 350 sq. yards situate on Sree Jayachamarajawadiyar Road, 39th Division, Bangalore City (formerly bearing S.No. 34/9 of Mavalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore and since converted) bounded on the North and East by Smt. Rajamma's property; West by Sree Jayachamarajawadiyar Road, and South by Adagodi Papiah's property; together with the buildings and structures erected thereon for use as a petrol and lubrication service station with drive-ways including footpath cutting and paving situate at J.C. Road in the Registration Sub-District of Bangalor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-05-1990
Reported in : AIR1991Kant271; 1990(3)KarLJ349
ORDER1. The petitioner who is a Registered Medical Practitioner, is a consulting E.N.T. Surgeon and Anesthesiologist. He was the Professor of Anaesthesiology at Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, and Honorary Anesthesiologist to Government Wenlock Hospital and Government Lady Goschen Hospital, Mangalore. It is stated that he was also a consultant for Fr. Muller's Hospital, Kankanady, Mangalore. He has been running a Nursing Home under the name and style of Shri Ramakrishna Nursing Home at Mangalore as a proprietary concern since 1967. He has also been working as Anesthesiologist since 1967. Smt. Shakunthala V, Pai was admitted to the petitioner's Nursing Home on 5-8-1981 under advise of Dr. U. K. Kini, the Surgeon. The petitioner was informed by the Surgeon that the patient was being posted for hemithyroidectomy under general anaesthesia on 6-8-1981 at 3-30 p.m. The operation was performed by the Surgeon assisted by another Doctor between 3-30 p.m. and 5-30 p.m. on 6-8-1981 and it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-31-1990
Reported in : 1991CriLJ247; ILR1990KAR3109
ORDER1. This is a Revision Petition under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) and is directed against the order dated 19-3-1990 made by the learned 111 Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. in Criminal Revision Petition No. 242/88 on his file. 2. The matter is heard on admission. 3. The facts are these : Sri Abdul Khader, the petitioner, married Smt. Razia Begum, the respondent, on 27-4-1977. In course of time there cropped up differences between the petitioner and the respondent. According to the petitioner, some days after the marriage, the respondent deserted him and went to reside with her parents. According further to him, his efforts to bring her back to his roof through the intervention of elders proved futile. The respondent filed an application under section 125 of the Code, seeking a monthly maintenance allowance in a sum of Rs. 300/- from the petitioner, in Miscellaneous Case No. 50/82. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who dealt with and d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-07-1990
Reported in : [1991(62)FLR611]; ILR1991KAR876
ORDERRama Jois, Ag. C.J.1. The petitioner, who is a Beedi factory, has presented this Writ Petition praying for quashing the notice issued by the Regional Office of the Employees State Insurance, calling upon the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the E.S.I. Act and the Schemes and Regulations framed thereunder.2. The material averments in the Writ Petition are these:- The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of beedies, which manufactures about 3.5 lakh beedies every day. Out of this 1.25 to 1.5 lakh beedies are being manufactured within the factory premises and the rest of the beedies are being manufactured through contractors. For the benefit of the workers employed in the beedi Industries, the Parliament has enacted Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966; Beedi Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1976 and Beedi Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1976. Rules have also been framed under these enactments. Under the provisions of the aforesaid enactm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-29-1990
Reported in : AIR1991Kant303; ILR1990KAR2576
1. Defendants in O.S. 2/88 on the of file of the District Judge. Shimoga (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Judge')have filed this appeal under O. 43, R. 1(r) of C.P.C. against the order dt. 27-3-1989 passed on I.A.I. by the trial Judge granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and against the appellants restraining the latter from passing off their Ayurvedic herbal skin ointment bearing the trade name 'HERBINOL' and also from marketing the said product till the disposal of the suit.2. For the sake of convenienee, reference will hereinafter be made to the appellants as defendants and to the respondent as plaintiff which position they occupy in the suit in the trial Court.3. The suit which can be termed as 'a case of passing off action' was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the trial Judge on 11-10-1988 for a judgment and decree against the defendants restraining them and their agents from infringing the trade mark of their skin ointment called 'HURB...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-29-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR254; 1990(3)KarLJ437
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In the light of the decisions of this Court and also of the other High Courts taking different views on the question involved in this Civil Revision Petition, it is referred to a Division Bench.2. This C.R.P. is preferred against the order dated 24-8-1389 passed by the learned Additional Small Causes Judge (S.C.C.H.3), Bangalore City in Ex.No.4737/1989. The petitioner is an objector to the decree and the respondent is the decree-holder.3. The respondent is the landlord of the premises in question. He obtained an order of eviction under Section 21(1)(f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 4-1-1989 against Sri A.M. Bhatia. The order of eviction was put into execution in Ex.Case No. 4737/1989. The petitioner objected to the same by filing an objection under Section 47 C.P.C. stating that the order of eviction passed in H.R.C. No. 2828/1986 against A.M. Bhatia was not binding upon him and that he was in possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-28-1990
Reported in : [1991]190ITR440(KAR); [1991]190ITR440(Karn)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. This is a revision petition under section 55 of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), preferred by the assessee. The assessee is a coffee planter. He filed the return for the assessment year 1976-77 (accounting period April 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976) disclosing his status as an association of persons. The association in question consisted of the assessee, P.M. Subbaiah, his two brothers and two sisters, all having attained the age of majority, undisputedly, prior to that assessment year, the family was being assessed as a Hindu undivided family. After the death of the karta of the Hindu undivided family which was some years before the assessment year 1976-77, an advocate from Madikeri represented the assessee before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Virajpet. The members of the family had entered into an agreement dated April 2, 1975, by which they had severed their status as members of the Hindu undiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : May-29-1990
Reported in : ILR1990KAR2058
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. This Writ Petition is before the Division Bench by an order of reference dated 15-12-1989 made by the learned Single Judge in view of the preliminary objection raised before him that the Writ Petition was not maintainable as it was by rival traders.2. The learned Single Judge in his order of reference has stated in detail the cases relied upon by the parties in support of their rival contentions. The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable because three of the petitioners were rival cinema theatre owners and as such they could not have locus-stand to prosecute a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. That contention was supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in (1) THE NAGAR RICE AND FLOUR MILLS AND ORS. v. N. TEEKAPPA GOWDA & BROTHERS AND ORS., : [1970]3SCR846 , (2) JASBHAI MOTIBHAI DESAI v. ROSHAN KUMAR, HAJI BASHIR AHMED AND ORS., AIR 1976 SC 578 and (3) the decision of this Court in the case of B.N. SAMPAT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-1990
Reported in : [1991(62)FLR718]; ILR1991KAR946
K.A. Swami, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated March 11, 1985, passed in W.P. No. 8398 of 1984. The appellants herein were respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioners in the writ petition. In this appeal, the appellants will be referred to as respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 1 and 2 as petitioners. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioners have sought for quashing the orders dated March 31, 1984, passed by the first respondent on Claim Application Nos. MW 92 of 1983 and MW 93 of 1983 (Annexure-H). Those application were filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (respondent 2) before the 1st respondent under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Minimum Wages, Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Enforcement Officer claimed that the wages paid by the petitioner to workmen employed for construction of staff quarters for Railway Administration at Puttenahalli, Yelahanka Hoble, were not in conformity with the notification issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-22-1990
Reported in : ILR1991KAR2779; 1991(4)KarLJ503
K.A. Swami, J.1. This Appeal by the 7th defendant is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1978, passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in O.S.No. 30/1971. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 12 are defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 12 respectively. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 12 expired. Therefore, his legal representatives were brought oh record as defendants 13 to 18. They are respondents 13 to 18 in the appeal. In this Judgment, the present appellant would be referred to as the 7th defendant.2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant (the 7th defendant) died. His legal representatives are brought on record. In this Judgment, the appellants being the legal heirs of the deceased 7th defendant, they would be referred as 7th defendant, respondent No. 1 as the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 11 and 13 to 18 as defendants 1 to 6 and 8 to 11 and 13 to 18 respectively.2.1. The trial Court has passed a decree in the following term...
Tag this Judgment!