Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: karnataka Year: 1976 Page 1 of about 11 results (0.008 seconds)

Sep 09 1976 (HC)

Bharatiya Samskrithi Vidhyapith, Bangalore Vs. G. Parthasarathy

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-09-1976

Reported in : AIR1977Kant113; ILR1977KAR275; 1977(1)KarLJ87

..... several grounds. in the course of his evidence petitioner sought to displace the alleged bona fides of the requirement of the landlord by alleging that the landlord had through the mediation of r. gopalaswamy negotiated a sale of the property concerned in the proceedings to the petitioner, and that the said gopalaswamy, allegedly in exercise of his authority as such agent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1976 (HC)

Rudrayya Vs. Gangawwa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-26-1976

Reported in : ILR1976KAR1151; 1976(1)KarLJ409

sadanandaswamy, j.1. this revision petition has been referred to a division bench since the learned single judge who heard it in the first instance was of the opinion that it involves questions of considerable public importance.2. the petitioner took on lease the land r. s. no. 104, measuring 5 acres and 3 guntas, situate in thimmasagara village which is now part of hubli city, on 19-1-1949, under a registered lease deed on an annual rent of rs. 1,505, the period of lease being 41 years, from the owners respondents 1 and 2. respondent 3 is alleged to be the sub-lessee under the petitioner. the respondents filed an eviction petition under section 21, clause (1), sub-clauses (b), (c) and (f) of the mysore rent control act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the act). the present petitioner contended, among other things that the application is not maintainable for the reason that the suit property was an agricultural land and that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. the learned additional munsiff, hubli, negatived his contention and held that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application. it is against this order that the revision petition has been filed.3. in the lease deed exhibit p-1 the suit property is described as garden land. it also recites that there is a house standing on the suit property. the purpose for which the lease is taken is stated to be for the storage of fuel and timber. the lease deed also recites that the tenant will apply .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 1976 (HC)

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Devangere and ors. Vs. Kotraiahf ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-22-1976

Reported in : AIR1977Kant33; 1976(2)KarLJ318

venkatachallaa, j.1. m. f. as. nos. 250 to 264 of 1975 are by the special land acquisition officer, b. r. prollect, davangere, chitradurga district, and are directed against the common award and separate decrees in l. a. c. nos. 194 ' 171, 72, 173, 174, 177, lal, 182, 189, 19l 193, 196, 197, 198 of i rt 3 and 127 of 1974 respectively on the file of the court of the civil judge at chitradurga, enhancing the compensation respecting several extents of agricultural 1inds classified as dry, wet and bagayat situate in devarabelakere village, harihar taluk, chitraduraga district, acquired for a public purpose, namely, the 'devarabelakere pick-up project pursuant tu the preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act published in the gazet. te dated 15-7-1971.the connected appeals are by the several claimants 'seeking further enhancement.2. 'me claim for compensation before the land acquisition officer was rupees mom/- per acre for the dry lands: and rs. 80,000k per acre for the wet and bagayat lands. the land acquisition officer awarded compensation valuing the acquired lands at rs. 961/- per acro uniformly on the basis of sales statistics from the office of the sub-registrar, haribar taluk the claimants did not accept the awards made by the land acquisition officer; '6ut sought references to the civil court under section 18 of the land acquisition act in proceedings pursuant to which the civil judge enhanced the compensation fixing the market value of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1976 (HC)

Habibulla Shariff and anr. Vs. the University of Mysore

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-20-1976

Reported in : AIR1977Kant80; ILR1976KAR1715

order1. the petitioners are final m. b. b. s. students of the mysore university. they have moved this court with a petition under art. 226 of the constitution praying for a writ or direction against the university to declare their results of the examination in subject, obstetrics and gynaecology.2. the events leading up to the petitions are these: the academic term for the final m. b. b. s. examination was between 1-1-1975 to 30-11-1975. as usual, the petitioners applied to take the examination on 11-10-1975, and the applications were forwarded to the university on 20-11-1975. statutes 201 and 202 made under the mysore university act, 1956, provide that the applications of the candidates are to be scrutinised under the supervision of the controller of examinations and to assign the register number to each candidate. the register number so assigned is to be entered in the printed admission ticket to be delivered to the candidate. the admission ticket shall then be sent to the chief superintendent for being delivered to the particular candidate. after the above formalities were over, the chief superintendent issued the admission tickets to the petitioners on 22-1-1976. the admission ticket was one for the entire examination, which consisted of three subjects namely, medicine, surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology.3. the petitioners had no shortage of attendance in the first two subjects. but, they had a little shortage of attendance in the third subject. this was said to have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1976 (HC)

The State of Karnataka Vs. Shivadeva

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-27-1976

Reported in : 1976CriLJ1958

d.s. tewatia, j.1. the judicial magistrate first class, davangere, brought to the notice of this court through the district and sessions judge, chitradurga, the two letters written to him by shivadeva accused dated 10-10-1975/18-11-1975 ex. p-1 and 30-11-19715/2-12-1975 ex. p-2 containing language which according to the learned magistrate was highly contemptuous of this court. these letters are alleged to have been written by the accused after the magistrate aforesaid had dismissed his complaint under sections 447, 500 and 323, i.p.c. against one narappa and rajashekarappa after obtaining the report of the sub-inspector of police, davangere town police station to whom the complaint had been referred for enquiry and report under section 156 (3), criminal p. c.2. this court, on perusal of the aforesaid letters written by shivadeva accused, issued notice to him to show cause. in pursuance of the show cause notice, he appeared in court and when questioned as to whether the two letters in question had been written by him, his reply was in the affirmative. since the material before the court disclosed a prima facie case for taking action under the contempt of courts act, so a charge was framed which was read over, explained and delivered to the accused. the accused who is fairly educated person m. sc. (m. a.) pleaded that he had not done any wrong in writing the aforesaid letters.3. the case was adjourned for evidence of the prosecution. on the adjourned date, mr. advocate general .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1976 (HC)

L. Dhanya Naik Vs. State

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-22-1976

Reported in : 1977CriLJ654

d.b. lal, j.1. these three criminal appeals having been connected and consolidated arise out of a judgment of the sessions judge at chitradurga, convicting the appellant l.d. naik, the then block development officer, hosadurga, under sections 467/34, 477-a/34 and 409/34 of the indian penal code and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 500/-and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offences under sections 467/34 and 409/34 of the indian penal code, and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs. 200/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under section 477-a/ 34 of the indian penal code. the prosecution case was that the appellant l.d. naik was working as block development officer, hosadurga, during the years 1968-69 along with k.h. seshachar under him as the first division clerk, and revana working under him as an accountant in the same office. besides these officials, there were two contractors namely, k.k. mohiyuddm and anjanappa to whom several works of the taluk board were entrusted and they were engaged to complete these works. according to the arrangement in vogue in that office, the account of the taluk board used to be kept at the sub-treasury of hosadurga and the payments were to be made through cheques which were prepared by k.h. seshachar, supervised by the accountant revanna, and ultimately signed by l.d. naik the appellant, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 1976 (HC)

Sourindra Lal Das and anr. Vs. Latika Das

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-19-1976

Reported in : 1977CriLJ405

sudhamay basu, j.1. this application relates to a proceeding in case no. c/131 of 1974 in the court of. the learned metropolitan magistrate, 12th court, calcutta.2. mr. moitra the learned advocate appearing in support of the motion challenged at first the order dated january 19, 1974 on the ground or non compliance of the provision of section 200 of the code of criminal procedure. obviously he did so on the basis of the judgment in the case of bramhananda goel reported in 1974 cri lj 1079 (cal). since then the decision has been set aside by the special bench in the case of tara dutta v. state, reported in 79 cal wn 996 : air 1975 sc 450, mr. moitra further tried to argue that the recording of the statement was also not in order as he thought that the substance of the examination has not been reduced to writing in terms of the said section. we are unable to accept the validity of his submission. in this connection we may refer to the case of queen empress v. murphy, reported in (1887) ilr 9 all 666. in our view there has been sufficient compliance with section 200 of the code of criminal procedure.3. mr. moitra next argued that the order d/- 11-2-1974 by which the learned presidency magistrate asked the accused to furnish cash bail was wrong. we find substance in this argument. in our view there is no provision for asking the accused to furnish cash bail. a division bench decision of this court (abdul gani v. emperor) 14 rule 18 221 : (1947)48 cri lj 773 (cal) held that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 1976 (HC)

The Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Gajanan Shankararao Kulkarni and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-05-1976

Reported in : AIR1977Kant14; ILR1976KAR1255; 1976(2)KarLJ37

venkatachaliah, j.1. this appeal by the plaintiff in original suit no. 10 of 1967 an the file of the civil judge at hubli is directed against that part of the judgment and decree dated 25-2-1972 by which the court below, while granting a decree against the principal debtor, the first defendant in the suit for the sum of rs.32,757/- negatived the claim against the sureties, defendant3 2 and 3 who are respondents i and 2 respectively in this appeal.2. appellant claiming to be the successor-in-interest of bank of karnataka ltd., hubli, instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, for the recovery of the sum of rs. 32,757/- against the first defendant as the principal debtor in enforcement of the pronote for rs. 25.000/-, exhibit p-1, and the hypothecation bond, exhibit p-2, relating to the truck myg 3031 and against defendants 2 and 3, on the basis of the surety bond, exhibit p-3; the said transactions under exhibits p-1, p-2 and p-3 having been entered into by the defendants with the bank of karnataka ltd., hubli. appellant claims that the assets and liabilities of the said bank of karnataka are taken over by the appellant on 29-12-1966.3. the defence urged by respondents 1 and 2 in the court below, inter alia, was that appellant was not the holder in due course of the negotiable instrument. exhibit p-1 and was not competent to maintain the action thereon, and that the appellant and the bank of karnataka from which appellant derives title having allowed the security under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1976 (HC)

Basappa Ningappa Arabi Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot Sub-di ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-30-1976

Reported in : AIR1976Kant224; ILR1976KAR974; 1976(1)KarLJ415

order1. this petition under article 226 of the constitution is directed against a no confidence motion passed against the petitioner, as a result of which he has been removed from the office of chairman of amingad town panchayat. his appeal to the assistant commissioner against such removal had also been rejected.2. the total number of members constituting amingad town panchayat was 17. but at the relevant point of time, one of them had died. on a requisition by six of the members of the panchayat, in accordance with section 32 of the karnataka village panchayats, and local boards act, 1959, a meeting was convened by the vice-chairman on 11-9-1975. out of the members present, eleven members voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the chairman (petitioner). there was also a twelfth member who had consented to such no confidence motion although he was not actually present at the meeting. it was thus the petitioner was removed from the office of chairman. his appeal to the assistant commissioner having failed, he has approached this court for relief.3. on behalf of the petitioner, several contentions were urged by sri m. narayanaswamy, the learned counsel. it is sufficient for the purpose of disposal of this petition to refer to one of them. it is contended that having regard to the provisions of sub-section (1) of s. 32 of the act, it was the clear duty of the chairman to convene the meeting for the purpose of passing a motion of no confidence, and, only on his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1976 (HC)

Jasmine Amarjothi Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-08-1976

Reported in : 1976(1)KarLJ391; (1977)ILLJ121Kant

order1. these petitions raise an important question of law relating to recruitment to class iii cadre in the reserve bank of india, which is a body corporate constituted under the reserve bank of india act, 1934. the matter arises in this way : the reserve bank is entrusted with all the monetary and banking transactions of the central and state governments. it has got its branch offices in almost all the states including one at bangalore. the bangalore branch has jurisdiction over the entire state of karnataka. in the beginning of 1974, the manager of the bangalore branch invited applications from indian citizens for enlistment in the waiting lists for the common cadre of clerks grade ii/coin-note examiners grade ii which are class iii posts. the minimum qualification prescribed was a bachelor's degree with minimum of 40 per cent marks aggregate of a recognised university, preferably in economics, commerce, banking, statistics, mathematics. the petitioners were amongst several candidates who responded to the advertisement and applied for the posts. the petitioners' applications, however, were not considered solely on the ground that they have not passed the qualifying examination from any one of the universities established in the karnataka state. it is the contention of the petitioners that their exclusion is arbitrary discriminatory and violative of the fundamental right guaranteed to them under art. 16(1) of the constitution. 2. the non-consideration of the petitioners' .....

Tag this Judgment!


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