Karnataka Court October 1985 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
K. Yadav Vs. Syndicate Bank and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Kant237; ILR1986KAR835
ORDER1. Common question involved is as to whether petitioners who undisputedly belong to 'Kotegar' community are of Scheduled caste within the meaning of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or not.2. Petitioners secured certain promotions, after they were permitted to take promotional examinations, as persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. But, subsequently visited with reversion to their original cadre as Clerks, since Bank in which they are working is of the opinion that they do not belong to Scheduled Caste.Letter dt. 19th Nov. 1981 emanated from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi which reads thus: -'Subject: Issue of Caste certificate belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes persons clarification. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. 2314/81 RU dt. 24th October 1981 on the subject mentioned above and to say that according to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order...
Sha Ambalal Mohanlal Oswal Vs. Mohammad Ibrahim
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4181
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1.This Revision Petition by the tenant is directed against the order dated 6-10-1982 made by the Learned District Judge, Bijapur, in HRC. RP. No. 14/82 on his file. That revision was preferred by the tenant aggrieved by the order dated 15-3-1982 on I.A.I in HRC. No. 194/80 made by the Principal Munsiff, Bijapur, directing eviction under theprovision of sub-section (4) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the circumstances hereinafter stated.2. Respondents/landlords filed an eviction Petition on the ground available to them by virtue of Clause (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act stating that the premises in question was required for their own use and occupation to carry on their trade. The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the Petition inter alia on the ground that the petitioners (respondents herein) were not his landlords. While the matter stood thus, on 11-3-1982 an app...
Nagaraja Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-01-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4113
ORDERK. A. Swami, J.1. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for quashing the Circular dated 8-7-1985 bearing No. RD 268 ESR 84 issued by the State Government fixing the minimum market value of immovable properties in various localities of Bangalore City.2. The Circular is purported to have been issued under Section 45A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Similar Circular issued by the Deputy Commissioner of another District was challenged in Writ Petition No. 42106 of 1982 and other Writ Petitions M.G. Kulkarni - v. - State of Karnataka, : ILR1985KAR2152 . This Court has held that it is not permissible to issue such a circular fixing the market value of the property. Relevant portions of the Judgment are as follows :'19. The term market value of the property has not been defined in the Act. But, the explanation to sub-section (5) of Section 45A of the Act really achieves or provides for that. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›