Karnataka Court December 1977 Judgments
T. Sharda Vs. the Principal, Visveswariah College of Engineering, Bang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant111
ORDER1. At the end of the 4th Semester, the petitioner, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and several others sought for a change from Electrical Engineering to Electronics for which there appears to be keen competition. On the basis of merit and reservations generally made to Backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Educational Institutions, the University authorities have permitted respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and 5 others and have denied the demand of the petitioner for a seat in Electronics for which reason she has moved this Court for a writ of mandamus to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to admit her to the 5th Semester in Electronics either in addition or in supersession of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.2. In the original and the additional statement of objections filed, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded that transfers to the subject of Electronics have been permitted on the basis of merit and reservation to Backward Classes and that in effecting transfers they have adopted a fair practic...
Tag this Judgment!Radio and Electricals Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: [1979(38)FLR112]; 1978(1)KarLJ130; (1978)IILLJ131Kant
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 19th May, 1976, rejecting an application presented to it by the petitioner - The Radio and Electricals ., Bangalore - under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ('the Act') on 16th June, 1975 seeking its approval, for the order dated 16th June, 1975 passed by the petitioner - management dismissing one of its workmen, who is the 2nd respondent in this writ petition. The petitioner was required to seek such an approval as an industrial dispute was pending between the petitioner and their workmen in I.D. No. 17 of 1973, in view of 33(2)(b) of the Act, which reads as follows :'33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings. (1) ** ** (2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with the standing orders applicable to...
Tag this Judgment!Ballesha Rama Khot and ors. Vs. the Land Tribunal, Chikodi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant73
Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. While disagreeing with the view taken in Rayappa Basappa Killed v. Land Tribunal (1976) 1 Kant LJ 219 : (AIR 1976 Kant 205) a Division Bench of this court has referred to a Full Bench, the following two questions of law for decision under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: 1. Whether a land held by a person in his capacity as a tenant, immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, which was net in his actual possession before the said date stands transferred to and vests m the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 44 if the land is not held by him under a lease permitted by Section 5 of the Act'' 2. Whether a tenant who was lawfully entitled to cultivate the land personally immediately prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act but was wrongfully or illegally prevented from doing so, is entitled to registration of occupancy rights under Section 45 of the Act? 2. The decision on these questions depends upon the...
Tag this Judgment!Palthur Raja Saheb Vs. Noor Mohemed Saheb and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant81; 1978(1)KarLJ132
ORDER1. The Landlord obtained a decree in H.R.C. No. 65 of 1975 against the tenant for eviction in the Court of the Munsiff, Bellary, under Clause (j) of Section 21 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, on 31-7-1975. The tenant went up in Revision to the District Judge, Bellary, in H.R.C. Revision Petition No. 9 of 1975 and the learned District Judge, or hearing, dismissed the Revision Petition as devoid of merits by his order dated 27-1-1976. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant has presented the present Revision Petition. After the Revision Petition was filed, the landlord Noor Mohemed Saheb died and his legal representatives, viz., the widow and sons, were brought on, record.2. The learned Advocate for the Revision Petition vehemently contended that since the original landlord was no more the cause of action did not survive in favour of his legal representatives and without more, the Revision Petition should be allowed.3. The learned Advocate relied on a decision of this C...
Tag this Judgment!V. Krishna Bhat Vs. Ravishankar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant117; ILR1978KAR401; 1978(1)KarLJ144
ORDER1. The first defendant in O. S. No. 105 of 1970 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge at Mangalore, has preferred this revision against the order of that court on I. A. No. XVII dated 22-9-1976.2. Respondents 1 to 4 are the plaintiffs; respondents 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are defendants 2 to 6 respectively in the suit.3. Plaintiffs are minors and are represented by their next friend--their maternal uncle in the suit. During the course of this order I shall be referring the parties as they appear in the original suit in the court below.4. Defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of the first defendant, and the fifth defendant is his wife. The sixth defendant is the mother of the plaintiffs and the widow of one Rama Bhat. The first defendant is the brother of the said Rama Bhat who died on 6-7-1968 leaving behind him the plaintiffs and his widow as his legal representatives.5. It appears that after his death, within a period of a few months, a partition took place in which the family properties...
Tag this Judgment!The Navalgund Taluka Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Socie ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-19-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant122; ILR1978KAR485; 1978(1)KarLJ127
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. On a reference made by Bhimiah, J. the above petition has come up before us for disposal.2. The 1st petitioner is the Navalgund Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Annigeri, District Dharwar. Petitioners 2 to 10 were the members of the Committee of Management of 1st petitioner-Society. On the basis of certain allegations relating to the mismanagement of the affairs of the 1st petitioner-Society by its Committee of Management, a show cause notice was issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Belgaum under Section 30(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the petitioners, to show cause as to why action should not be taken to remove the Committee of Management of petitioner No. 1 Society, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice contained the particulars of 22 charges which were based on the allegations made against the Committee of Manag...
Tag this Judgment!M. Nagaraj and anr. Vs. the Controller of Customs and Central Excise, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant83; 1978(1)KarLJ110
ORDER1. Petitioner No. 1 is the transferee of an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. MYO 1605 that was originally owned by petitioner No. 2. As the said transfer has no bearing and as the interests of the petitioners are common, I will refer to them as petitioner in the course of my order.2. In connection with the alleged smuggling activities of petitioner No. 2, the Central Excise Authorities acting under the Customs Act of 1962 (Central Act No. 52 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1962 Act') instituted proceedings against him for seizure of Metallic yarn and Fabrics of foreign origin and a car bearing Registration No. MYO. 1605. In order No. C. No. VIII/10-11-12/74 cus. O. R. 3-9/ 74) dated 28-2-1977 issued on 28/29-6-1977, the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, inter alia directed the confiscation of car bearing Registration No. MYO. 1605 and its redemption by the petitioner on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under S. 115(2) of the Act. In this Writ Petition I am c...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatappa Vs. L.N. Dattatri and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant51; ILR1978KAR31; 1978(1)KarLJ90
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J. 1. The appellant, Venkatappa made an application in Form No. 7 to the Laud Tribunal Tarikere, on 26th December 1975 for grant of occupancy right in respect of 3 acres 12 guntas of agricultural land in S. No. 141 of Hulsoor village, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere Taluk. Respondent-1, Dattatri is the holder of the said land. Though the said application was made after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), no cause was shown for condonation of delay in making the application.2. The Tribunal straightway issued notice in Form No. 9, Parties and their witnesses were examined and the Tribunal by its order in LRT 3/1975-70 allowed the application and granted occupancy right to the appellant. That order was challenged by respondent-1, before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1995 of 1977 in which Rule Nisi was issued. The appellant did not appear to contest. T...
Tag this Judgment!Basvagowda Vs. Land Tribunal, Athani and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Kant42
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This appeal by a land-holder is directed against the order of Malimath, J., dated 25-10-1976 made in W. P. No. 9295 of 1976 rejecting the Writ Petition at the preliminary hearing stage.2. The appellant is the land-holder of the land comprised in Survey No. 957/1B of Athni village. The second respondent Ramappa, alleging that he is a tenant of the said land, made an application in Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal, Athni, for grant of occupancy right. That application is dated 6-10-1975. The second respondent appended a Note to his application stating that for the reasons stated in his affidavit accompanying Form No. 7 application, the delay in making the application may be condoned. The first respondent Land Tribunal did not consider the sufficiency of the cause shown by the applicant to admit the application made beyond 31st December 1974. It straightway went into the merits of the case and held that the second respondent was a tenant of the land and conseq...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›