Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: karnataka Year: 1977 Page 1 of about 14 results (0.007 seconds)

Feb 18 1977 (HC)

Beerapa Lakkappa Devakatti Vs. the Land Tribunal, Bijapur Taluka and o ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-18-1977

Reported in : AIR1977Kant128; 1977(1)KarLJ252

order1. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india arises out of the proceedings initiated before the land tribunal, bijapur taluka (respondent no. 1) on an application made by bheemappa yallappa byadagi (respondent no. 2) under s. 45 of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 hereinafter called 'the act', claiming registration of occupancy in respect of a land comprised in r. s. no. 215/2 measuring 16 acres and 12 guntas in shiddapur village of bijapur taluka.2. the petitioner is the land-holder. on the application of the second respondent claiming registration of occupancy, the tribunal issued notice to the petitioner. the petitioner opposed the application on the ground that the land in dispute was not a tenanted land immediately prior to ist march 1974, which is the relevant date for determination of a dispute under section 45 of the act. the petitioner produced before the tribunal certified extracts of the record of rights and other documents. the tribunal examined the parties and also some witness on both sides and made an order on 18-2-1976 holding that the second respondent (applicant) is a tenant of the disputed land for the past 15 years and that he is entitled to the grant of registration of occupancy. aggrieved by the said order, the landholder has preferred this writ petition.3. it was urged by sri v.s. gunjal learned counsel for the tribunal is not a speaking order and that the tribunal has failed to give reasons for ignoring the presumption .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1977 (HC)

Chandra Bai Vs. Tukaram

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-21-1977

Reported in : AIR1977Kant170; ILR1977KAR556; 1977(1)KarLJ270

order1. this petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-6-1973 passed by the ii additional district judge, dharwar, in h. r. c. appeal no. 71 of 1971 setting aside the order passed in h. r. c. no. 50 of 1968 by the additional munsiff, hubli and dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under ss. 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(f) of the karnataka rent control act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').2. the undisputed facts are that the petitioner is the owner of open site bearing c. t. s. no. 1858 in ward no. v of hubli and also bearing municipal h. d. m. c. no. 19. she has leased out the site to respondent 1 tukaram, since dead. his legal representative, namely, the wife has been brought on record. tukaram had constructed a structure worth about rs. 400/- by 18-5-1964. on 18-5-1964, the petitioner and tukaram entered into a contract of lease as per ext. p-1.3. the petitioner filed an application under s. 21 (1) (a) and (f) of the act contending that as per ext. p-1 tukaram had to erect a construction worth about rs. 600/- but had failed to erect such a construction and that tukaram had not paid rental from 18-5-1964 and hence had become a defaulter within the meaning of s. 21 (1) (a) of the act and lastly that tukaram had sub-let certain rooms in the building constructed by him on the land to respondents 2 and 3 as such was liable to be evicted under s. 21 (1) (f) of the act.4. sri. tukaram contended that he had leased out two rooms to respondents 2 and 3 and that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1977 (HC)

H. Ganesh Kamath and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-25-1977

Reported in : AIR1977Kant165; 1977(1)KarLJ277

srinivasa iyengar, j.1. in these four petitions, amendment to the karnataka motor vehicles rules, 1963, by notification no. hd 16 tmr 73 dated 7th july 1976, introducing sub-r. (2) to r. 5 is challenged. rule 5 (2) is as follows:'(2) no authorisation to drive a heavy motor vehicle shall be granted unless the applicant satisfies the licensing authority concerned that he has had at least two years) experience in driving any medium motor vehicle.'it is contended that the said sub-rule is repugnant to the provisions in the motor vehicles act (central act iv of 1939) (hereinafter called the 'act'), and accordingly ultra vires.2. the petitioner in the first writ petition had obtained a learner's licence to learn driving heavy motor vehicles under the karnataka motor vehicles rules, 1963 (hereinafter called the 'rules') and obtained training in crown motor driving school, mangalore, which was an institution recognised by the government of karnataka under r. 30 of the rules and held licence to impart training in driving heavy motor vehicles. after completion of the training, he obtained a certificate from the school and, applied through the said school, for licence to drive heavy motor vehicles, on 22nd july 1976. but the licensing authority rejected his application referring to the notification under which r. 5 (2) was introduced and holding that the petitioner had not complied with the requirements of r. 5 (2) and his application to offer test of competence for issue of licence for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1977 (HC)

Chairman, Kurigala Sangopaneya Mattu Unneya Udyogika Sahakari Sangha V ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-02-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Kar)0065A

k. jagannatha shetty, j. - the common petitioner in the sen revision petitions under section 23 of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (called shortly 'the act') is a society. for the years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the commercial tax officer levied tax on the purchase of wool made by the society. but later the assessee filed application under rule 38 of the rules framed under the act for rectification of assessment orders and for refund of the tax levied and collected. the assessee contended in its application that since the purchase of wood was made entirely from its members, the turnover relating to the said purchase was not taxable under the act in view of the decision of the sales tax appellate tribunal in m/s. supervisor wool industry development co-operative association limited, ranebennur. the commercial tax officer, acceded to that request and following the said decision rectified the orders of assessment and refunded the tax. the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes, however, found that the order of rectification was improper and illegal and he accordingly, in exercise of his revisional power conferred under s. 21, issued notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why he should not revise those rectification on orders. in response to the said notice, the only objection raised by the assessee related to the jurisdiction of the deputy commissioner to initiate proceedings under section 21 (2) of the act. it was contended that he could not exercise his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1977 (HC)

Patre S. Rudra Murthy Vs. the Karnataka Board of Wakfs and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-02-1977

Reported in : AIR1977Kant147; 1977(1)KarLJ342

tewatia, j.1. this petition is directed against the order of the administrator of the karnataka board of wakfs, bangalore, dated 24-1-1976 in l. c. c. no. 490 of 1961 exercising functions of the 'wakfs board under s. 27 of the wakf act of 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the act) whereby he declared the property that was the subject-matter of the impugned order as the property of the wakf board and ordered for the taking of steps for the recovery of the possession thereof.2. the facts leading to the filing of this petition and a little history of the property deserve to be noticed in the first instance before dealing with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the maintainability of the writ petition: it is alleged that one saukar mohiddin sab was the owner of the property in question which is a landed property measuring about 376.09 ,acres. he died in the year 1902 and left a will in which one t. abdul khader was named as the legatee and the settler. the said abdul khader, on 2-6-1910, mortgaged the entire aforesaid property. later on, on 18-9-1914, the mortgage instituted the suit on mortgage (0. s. no. 2/1914-15) in the district court, shimoga, which was decreed on 11-8-1915 for rs. 17,350/-. the said abdul khader, legatee, after being permitted to raise the decretal money by a private sale, sold the entire aforesaid property to one hussain sab on 6-10-1924. after some years the said hussain sab entered into an agreement of sale on 20-12-1940 with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 1977 (HC)

N. Venkataramanappa Vs. D.K. Naikar and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-07-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Kant57; 1978CriLJ726

malimath, j. 1. the complainant in this case is an advocate practising at bangalore who has filed this petition under the contempt of courts act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the act) praying that the two accused he punished under section 12 of the act read with article 215 of the constitution of india.2. the facts stated by the complainant are as follows; cr. r. p. no. 605 of 1973 was filed by one nagawwa against v. s. koujalgi and a. k. kottarashetti and the same was pending on the file of this court. it was disposed of by mr. justice d. noronha on 16-12-1974. on 11-4-1977 the chief justice of this court made a speech referring to the sad demise of the retired judge mr. noronha, appreciating the qualifies and judicial independence of justice noronha, the chief justice observed us follows:'i will be failing in my duty if i do not place on record an incident which may never be known to the public. there was a criminal case pending in this court in which some of the ministers of the state government were personally involved. on the basis of intelligence reports received, i directed the registrar to post the case before one of my colleagues. as foreseen by me, that learned judge was approached by one or more ministers and therefore the learned judge saying that he would not like to hear the case, directed the office to post it before some other judge. when this matter came to my notice, i sent for mr. justice noronha whose health was not at all good then. i asked him .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1977 (HC)

Chairman, Kurigala Sangopaneya Mattu Unneya Udyogika Sahakari Sangha V ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-02-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(Kar)65; 1977(1)KarLJ137; [1977]39STC299(Kar)

k. jagannatha shetty, j.1. the common petitioner in the sen revision petitions under section 23 of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 (called shortly 'the act') is a society. for the years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the commercial tax officer levied tax on the purchase of wool made by the society. but later the assessee filed application under rule 38 of the rules framed under the act for rectification of assessment orders and for refund of the tax levied and collected. the assessee contended in its application that since the purchase of wood was made entirely from its members, the turnover relating to the said purchase was not taxable under the act in view of the decision of the sales tax appellate tribunal in m/s. supervisor wool industry development co-operative association limited, ranebennur. the commercial tax officer, acceded to that request and following the said decision rectified the orders of assessment and refunded the tax. the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes, however, found that the order of rectification was improper and illegal and he accordingly, in exercise of his revisional power conferred under s. 21, issued notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why he should not revise those rectification on orders. in response to the said notice, the only objection raised by the assessee related to the jurisdiction of the deputy commissioner to initiate proceedings under section 21(2) of the act. it was contended that he could not exercise his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1977 (HC)

The Chairman, Kurigala Sangopaneya Mattu Unneya Udyogika Sahakari Sang ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-02-1977

orderjagannatha shetty, j. 1. the common petitioner in these revision petitions under section 23 of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957, (called shortly 'the act') is a society. for the years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the commercial tax officer levied tax on the purchase of wool made by the society. but later the assessee filed application under rule 38 of the rules framed under the act for rectification of assessment orders and for refund of the tax levied and collected. the assessee contended in its application that since the purchase of wool was made entirely from its members, the turnover relating to the said purchase was not taxable under the act in view of the decision of the sales tax appellate tribunal in supervisor, wool industry development co-operative association limited, ranebennur. the commercial tax officer acceded to that request and, following the said decision, rectified the orders of assessment and refunded the tax. the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes, however, found that the order of rectification was improper and illegal and he, accordingly, in exercise of his revisional power conferred under section 21, issued notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why he should not revise those rectification orders. in response to the said notice, the only objection raised by the assessee related to the jurisdiction of the deputy commissioner to initiate proceedings under section 21(2) of the act. it was contended that he could not exercise .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 1977 (HC)

Aneppa and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-05-1977

Reported in : 1978CriLJ462

c. honniah, actg. c.j.1. this is an appeal from the judgment of the additional sessions judge, gulbarga, dated 4-3-1977 convicting the accused (ai to a5) - (appellants), under section 302 read with sections 149, 143 and 148 i.p.c. and acquitting accused 6 to 10.2. the prosecution case, briefly stated is as follows; in the village savalgi, there were two maths, viz., shivalingeshwar math and santeshwar math. mal-likarjun. swamy (a8) was the head of shivalingeshwar math, while dr. neelkant shivacharya swamy (p.w. 35) was the head of shanteshwar math. in the year 1960 p.w. 35 started a free boarding hostel and a high school at savalgi. there was a committee managing the affairs of these two institutions. p.w. 35 was the president while chandranath (a-10) was the vice-president and deceased channabasappa was the secretary till 1968 of the said committee. in regard to the management of these institutions, disputes arose between p.w. 35 and channabasappa on the one hand and a6 to a-10 on the other. thereafter, a6 to a-10 formed another committee headed by a8 and they were opposing p.w. 35 and channabasappa. in the year 1973, there was theft in the school. p.w. 21 revansi-ddayya, who was the clerk of the school, filed a complaint against a3, a5, a6, a7 and others. in the election to the taluk development board, a10 opposed channabasappa and in that, a9 supported a-10. in that election, ghannabasappa was elected. a week prior to the murder of channabasappa, proceedings under section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1977 (HC)

Mallappa Vs. Veerabasappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-10-1977

Reported in : 1977CriLJ1856

orderd.b. lal, j.1. this revision is directed against the order of the additional munisiff and j. m. f. c. haveri in c. c. no. 208/76, passed under section 358 of the cr. p. c. holding that the complainant caused the arrest of the accused though there were no sufficient grounds for causing such arrest, and hence awarding the compensation.2. the case emerged out of a police complaint filed by mallappa against several accused including the respondents 1 to 6, the complainant's case related to a parcel of land stated to be in possession of mallappa and over such land the respondents 1 to 6 along with several other accused were stated to have trespassed-as such, the accused were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under section 447 read with section 109, i. p. c. it is manifest that the offence under section 447 was a cognizable one, and since the information regarding the accused was given by mallappa in his complaint, investigation was conducted under section 157, cr. p. c. leading to the arrest of the respondents 1 to 6. subsequently, the said accused were put up for trial, but they were acquitted. the learned trial magistrate found that although there was a dispute regarding possession, yet, it could be held to be of a civil nature. according to him, the respondents 1 to 6 were not present when the incident was alleged to have taken place. it was the seventh respondent who wag found at that time present at the spot as he claimed to be a watchman of cotton crop which was .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //