Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(3)ALLMR780; 2002(3)BomCR501; II(2002)DMC712
pratibha upasani, j.1. this chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiffs/decree holder, praying for appointment of court receiver, high court, bombay, who can take charge of the shop of the defendant situated on the ground floor of mubarak manzil, station road, bhayander, more particularly described in the schedule annexed and marked exhibit 'a' to the chamber summons, with all the movables lying therein with all powers under order xl, rule 1(d) of the code of civil procedure, and to sell the said shop with all the movables lying therein by public auction and to apply the net sale proceeds of the said property towards satisfaction of the decretal amount of rs. 2,00,000/- and interest thereon at 15% per annum from 1st february, 2000 till payment and costs of execution and of an incidental to all proceedings herein.2. few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :the plaintiff no. 1 rukhsana saifuddin kachwala is the wife of defendant saifuddin fakhruddin kachwala. both of them belong to the dawoodi bohra muslim community, and their marriage took place in mumbai on 24th december, 1985 as per shia ismail mustalian tayabi faith. plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are the minor daughters born out of the said marriage. all along, the grievance of plaintiff no. 1 was that the defendant was not maintaining her and their minor children, though he was legally and morally bound to do so. repeatedly, the defendant also expressed his wish to divorce plaintiff no. 1. serious allegations .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1955Kant76; AIR1955Mys76; (1956)34MysLJ61
1. o. s. no. 388/48-49 and o. s.no. 499/48-49 on the file of the munsif of davangere were brought by the municipal councildavangere city municipality, and one eranibasettappa respectively. in o. s. no. 388 of 48-49the municipal council prayed for a declarationof its title to a vacant piece of land measuring10 feet north to south and 100 feet east to westand for a permanent injunction restraining thedefendant from putting up any construction onit or otherwise interfering with the rights and possession of the plaintiff. in o. s. no. 499 of 48-49 the plaintiff erani easetappa prayed for a similar declaration that he was the owner of the same piece of land or in the alternative directing the municipal council to execute a sale deed conveying the same to him for the consideration of rs. 500/- which had already been paid by him or for a proper title deed and for a similar injunction. defendant 2 was impleaded in that suit as he was claiming some interest in the site under a later grant from the municipal council. the davangere municipal council, who will hereafter be referred to as the plaintiff, admitted in its plaint that by a resolution of the council at a meeting held on 22-11-47, it had granted the site in question to erani basettappa, who will hereafter be referred to as defendant. but the resolution had been passed under some mistake and by a later resolution at a meeting held on 20-10-48 the earlier resolution was cancelled. the first resolution was communicated to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1971Kant186; AIR1971Mys186; (1971)1MysLJ225
narayana pai, c.j.1. the petitioner was one of the candidates for election to the city of bangalore municipal corporation from the 43rd division. he presented his nomination paper on the 21st of november, 1970, according to the calendar of events relating to the election, the last date for presentation of nomination papers was the 23rd november, 1970 and the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers was the 25th of november. 1970. at the scrutiny m. obanna raju, another candidate for election from the same division (impleaded as the 8th respondent in this writ petition,) raised an objection to the reception of the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the property tax payable to the corporation by him in respect of his property in division no. 43. the petitioner produced a receipt for payment of taxes made by him at 3.30 p. m. on the same day, viz., the 25th of november, 1970. according to the receipt, payment made was of taxes for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. thereupon, the returning officer (the first respondent) rejected the nomination paper recording his decision in that regard as follows:'it is clear from the receipt produced by sri narayanachari that he has paid on 25-11-1970 and so there were arrears to corporation on the day he filed nomination on 23-11-1970. hence objection is upheld and nomination of sri narayanchari is rejected.'2. in this writ petition filed on the 27th of november, 1970, the petitioner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1972Kant193; AIR1972Mys193
e.s. venkatakamiah, j. 1. the question of law referred to the full bench in all the above cases is as follows:-- 'whether the relevant date for determining the market value of the property acquired under the city of mysore improvement act, 1903 (mysore act iii of 19031 is the date of notification under section 16 of that act, or the date of notification issued under section 18 of the act, or the date of taking possession of property.' 2. the undisputed facts in all these cases are thus: that all the buildings and the lands acquired in these cases are situate in devarai mohalla, mysore city, in an area of commercial importance. these buildings and lands were acquired under the provisions of the city of mysore improvement act, 1903 (mysore act iii of 1903) (hereinafter referred to as the act) for purposes of formation of a straight road from the statue square to the district offices in mysore city, in all these cases the notification under the section 16 of the act was issued in the year 1945 and the notification under section 18 of that act was issued in the year 1959. the possession of the lands and buildings in question were however taken from the claimants on sub sequential dates. there was therefore an interval of over fourteen years between the date of the notification under section 16 and the date of the notification under section 18 of the act and an interval of nearly twenty years between the date of the notification under section 16 of the act and the date of taking .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1971Kant324; AIR1971Mys324; (1971)1MysLJ535
chandrashekhar, j. 1. thebangalore city improvement trust board (hereinafter referred to as the trust board) formed a lay-out called 'the west of chord road, ii stage lay-out' in rajajinagar, bangalore. the trust board called for applications from persons intending to obtain sites therein. the petitioner as well as respondcnt-2 had applied for site no. 1251. that site was allotted to respondent-2.2. in this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the allotment of that site to respondent-2. she has also prayed for a mandamus directing the chairman of the trust board (respondent-1) to allot that site to her.3. mr. m. c. narasimhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in allotting that site the petitioner should have been preferred to respondent-2, because she (the petitioner) had purchased a site from a private person under a registered sale deed dated 21-11-1968 and that the site had been subsequently acquired by the trust board.4. sub-rule (1) of rule 10 of the city of bangalore improvement (allotment of sites) rules. 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the rules') sets out four principles to which regard should be had in making selection of applicants and fixing the priority for allotment of sites. clause (i) of that sub-rule reads :--(i) applicants whose lands or houses have been acquired by the board provided they are otherwise qualified for allotment. 5. the site, purchased by the petitioner from a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR3746
orderrama jois, j.1. these 12 writ appeals are presented against the common order rendered by a single judge in writ petition no. 2545a of 1973 and connected 11 writ petitions dismissing the writ petitions in which the petitioners had challenged the acquisition of a building, situate in the city of mysore under the provisions of the city of mysore improvement act 1903 ('the act' for short).2. briefly stated the facts of the case are these: building property bearing municipal numbers 1590 to 1603 situate near devaraja market in the city of mysore originally belonged to one sowcar channaiah. the property was sold in execution of a decree at the instance of the syndicate bank which was the decree-holder. the said property was purchased in court auction by the petitioners in the name of one of the petitioners, and, thereafter he executed separate sale deeds in favour of other petitioners. a preliminary notification under sub-section (1) of section 16 of the act was issued by the board on 17-9-1975. it was published in the official gazette on 6-11-1975. in the notification the name of sowcar channaiah was shown as the owner of the property sought to be acquired, though the petitioners had purchased the property about 2 years earlier to the preliminary notification. final notification acquiring the property was issued under section 18 of the act on 16th july 1977. thereafter, notices were served on the petitioners on 6-9-1977 in connection with the making of the award. according to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR3867; 1991(2)KarLJ320
k.a. swami, j.1. this appeal by the defendant is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1979 passed by the learned vii additional civil judge, bangalore city in o.s. no. 284/1975. 2. the trial court has decreed the suit for recovery of a sum of rs. 2,05,098/- with proportionate costs and current interest at 6% per annum on rs. 2,05,098/- from the date of suit till the date of realisation. 3. the respondent-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of a sum of rs. 2,16,387/- from the defendant. the said sum was made up as follows: 1) amount paidon 7-10-1975rs. 1,99,914-00interest there on at 12% from 7-10-1975 till daters. 10,995-422) amount paidon 9-12-1974rs. 5,184-00interest thereon at 12% from 9-12-1975 till daters. 293-59totalrs. 2,16,387-01however, the trial court has disallowed the interest as claimed by the plaintiff and has decreed the suit for a sum of rs. 2,05,098/-. 4. the case of the plaintiff was that it had owned vast area measuring 67 acres 10 1/2 guntas in s. no. 88 to 104 of byatarayanapura village, yelahanka hobli, bangalore north taluk. it had agreed to sell the same to m/s. larson & toubro for establishing their factory; that for that purpose, it had obtained the sanction from the deputy commissioner for conversion of the land from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes; that it had applied to the defendant for sanction of the plan for establishing a factory; that the defendant insisted upon the payment of development charges/ .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2295; JT1992(5)SC359; (1993)1MLJ35(SC); 1992(2)SCALE449; (1992)4SCC731; [1992]Supp1SCR383; 1992(2)LC576(SC)
ordern.m. kasliwal, j.1. this appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of the madras high court dated 2.4.1980. the hazarath syed shah mian sakkaf khadiri thaikal through trustee s.s. peeran sahib (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff) filed a suit on 15.9.1967 for possession of a plot of land measuring 124' 20' situated in the town of tanjore. the original tenant was m. ramasamy pillai who is now dead and is represented through his legal representatives who are the appellants in the present appeal. the plaintiff brought the suit on the allegation that the defendant took the suit property on lease for a period of 2 years from 1.2.1955 on a monthly rent of rs. 10 and executed a rent deed on 17.11.1955. it was further alleged that the defendant was in occupation of the site as a tenant ever since 1.2.1955 and after the expiry of the period of 2 years fixed in the rent deed, the defendant was continuing as a tenant holding over on the same terms. the defendant raised a superstructure on the land in suit. till october, 1966 the superstructure was made up of mud walls and thatched roofing. but suddenly, the defendant renewed the roofing of the front portion into one of calicut tiles without the knowledge or permission of the plaintiff. it was further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff wanted to construct pucca terraced shops on the site for which the necessary licence had been obtained from the municipality and as such the property in suit was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1961Ker62
ansari, c.j. 1. the two references had come to this court under the trivandrum city municipal act, no. iv of 1116, hereafter to be stated as the act, and been referred to the full bench, because the two questions arising therein have been considered to be of importance, and likely to affect a number of persons. before answering them it is necessary briefly to state the facts that have brought about the references, and the sections as well as the schedule to the act, whose interpretation would answer the two questions. 2. it appears that one m. k. harihara iyer had been assessed for two years to pay the tax on his income from investment by the commissioner of trivandrum city corporation under section 107 of the act, and the assessee had appealed to the committee that heard appeals against such assessments. the committee dismissed the appeals, whereupon appeals were filed before the district judge, who is vested with the appellate jurisdiction over the appellate orders of the committee. as there were two assessment orders, two appeals were filed before the district judge, wherein three objections were taken against the legality of the orders. the first was that the assessments amount to double taxation inasmuch as the tax on the property whose incomes were now being charged with the tax appealed against, had already been paid by the appellants. the next was that the section under which the tax was being levied, has authorised taxation on professional incomes alone, and would .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1958Ker61; 1958CriLJ503
vaidialingam, j.1. this is a revision by the city corporation, trivandrum, against the order of the learned corporation 1st class magistrate acquitting the respondent under section 245(1) of the criminal p. c.2. the respondent-accused was charged bythe revenue inspector of the city corporation,trivandrum, under section 409 of the trivandrumcity municipal act (act iv of 1116), read withrule 31 (2) of part vi, schedule ii of the saidact. ,3. according to the prosecution, the respondent was the highest bidder at the auction held for the right to run the cantonment connemara market for the period 1-4-1952 to 31-3-1953. the respondent is stated to have entered into an agreement with the corporation, agreeing to pay the bid amount in certain instalments stated therein.he is stated also to have agreed that in case of default, the corporation could re-auction the right and collect from him any fine imposed by the corporation together with other losses incurred by the corporation by such re-auction. it is the case of the corporation that the accused failed to remit the amounts as agreed to by him, and in consequence, the right to collect the market dues was put up in re-auction and the corporation sustained loss thereby. as distraint of his property was found impracticable, the present charge was laid and the subject-matter of the charge was to prosecute him for failure to pay the sum of rs. 915/4/- being the loss, including fines, due to the corporation from the accused.4. before the .....
Tag this Judgment!