Karnataka Court April 1985 Judgments
Manjunatha Vs. Director of Pre-university Education
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR4220
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In each of these Writ Petitions, the petitioner concerned has questioned the legality of the order of the Board of Pre-University Education of this State ('the Board' for short cancelling the certificate issued to the effect that he/she had passed the Pre-University examination held in April 1982.2. When the petitions came up for preliminary hearing, in each of these petitions the Government Advocate was directed to take notice and now these petitions have come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the Government Advocate. As the cases involves common questions of law and fact, they are disposed of by this common order.3. The brief facts of the case, in general, which have given rise to these Writ Petitions are as follows :(i) The petitioners appeared for the Pre-University examination conducted by the Board in April 1982. The results of the examination were announced in the month of June 1982. Each of the petitioners failed in one or the other subjects and as...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Babu Poojary
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2257; 1986(1)KarLJ123
Patil, J.1. The State has filed this appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the Judgment and order of acquittal dated May 26, 1982 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1982 acquitting theRespondents-A-1 to A-3 of the charge of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., read with Section 34 I.P.C., as also of the charge of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 324 I.P.C., as levelled against them.2. One Ayappa Poojary of surlimoole in Vittal Kanaba Village, Bantwal Taluk Dakshina Kannada District in thedeceased. A-3 Smt. Kamala is his wife. A-2 Sadashiva is his son. A 1 Babu Poojary is their distant relative i.e., A-3's sister's daughter is given in marriage to the nephew of A-1. The deceased was suspecting fidelity of A-3, his wife, and that had given cause for the difference between him and A-3. He was living all alone separately in a house situated in the Darkhast land allotted to him by the Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaveerappa Vs. District Judge
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2923
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1.At the out-set Mr. Albal, Learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners submitted that he may be permitted to convert this as Civil Revision Petition. Permission is granted. The office is directed to register this as Civil Revision Petition. Excess Court fee paid may be refunded.2. This Petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Chickrnagalur, dated 21-11-1980 under KVO. C.A. 1/80. The said appeal was filed by the petitioner' as Legal Representative of his father Kariappa, who had expired during the pendency of the proceedings against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Tarikere. The petitioner's contention was that his father Kariappa was functioning as Talwar and therefore, he was one of the persons interested in the Village Office and as such entitled for regrant. The Tahsildar has referred to certain documents in coming to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner is notsubstantiated by those documents. This finding of the Tahsildar ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Natraj Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-1985
Reported in: (1985)48CTR(Kar)88; ILR1985KAR1543; [1985]155ITR81(KAR); [1985]155ITR81(Karn)
Puttaswamy, J.1. On a reference made by one of us (Puttaswamy J.), these cases were posted before us for disposal. 2. As the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the constitutional validity of s. 44AB of the I.T. Act of 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) ('the Act'), we propose to dispose of these petitions by this order. 3. There are two groups of petitioners. The first group, who are the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 1585 to 1603 and Nos. 3775 to 3788 of 1985 are professionals who are authorised by law and s. 288 of the Act in particular to appear, act and plead for the assessees before all the authorities under the Act. We will hereafter refer to them as ITPs. 4. The ITPs consist of advocates who are on the rolls of one or the other Bar Council in the country, whose enrolment, conduct and other related matters are regulated by the Advocates Act of 1961 (Central Act No. 25 of 1961). A number of advocates, some of whom are petitioners before us, besides possessing a qua...
Tag this Judgment!Siddappa Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-09-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2439; 1985(2)KarLJ196
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. Petitioner is an applicant for recruitment as Assistant Engineer in the establishment of Karnataka Electricity Board-first respondent. In order to claim benefit of reservation made in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, he produced a certificate issued by Tahsildar, Kortagere, Kortagere Taluk, to the effect that he belonged to Beda Jangama (SC) recognised as Scheduled Caste. Both, Selection Authority and Appointing Authority, insisted for production of better particulars to establish that he belonged to Beda Jangama community. In that process, a good deal ofcorrespondence has taken place between Petitioner and respondents ; Petitioner asserting that he belongs to Beda Jangark while respondents insisting for better particulars before taking him to service.2. Being unsuccessful to get an order of posting, he has approached this Court to declare paragraph-2 ofendorsement dated 18-11-1978 marked as Annexure-E and that portion of the Official Memorandu...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswamy Vs. Director of Technical Education
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2018
ORDERDoddakale Gowda, J.1. In the process of selection of students for admission to Engineering Degree Course for the academic year 1984-85, petitioner was selected and assigned to B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore, to study Mechanical Engineering, and in fact joined the College on 22nd September, 1984remitting necessary fees. Request made for change of subject from Mechanical to Civil Engineering at the time of admission appears to have been forwarded to Director of Technical Education, who is the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Immediately, College was closed for Dasara Vacation and as usual, as a student hailing from moffusil went to his village during vacation. On re-opening of the College, when went to attend classes, he was informed by the College authorities that his admission to B.E. degree course in B.M.S. College of Engineering has been cancelled and assigned to University Visveswaraya College of Engineering, Bangalore.Accordingly, when went to join the University...
Tag this Judgment!Chokadi Venkataraman Vs. Kashim Saheb
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR1972
ORDERHakeem, J.1. This is a tenant's revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is directed against the order dated 3rd July 1978 passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Belgaum, in H.R.C.R.P. No. 37 of 1976 whereby the landlord's eviction petition has been allowed. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred herein according to their status as landlord or tenant.2. The petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent in respect of a non-residential premises situated at Belgaum. The landlord (respondent herein) sought for eviction of the tenant on the ground under Section 21(l)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The case of the landlord is that he has no occupation. That he has three grown up sons who are also unemployed and for whom some employment has to be provided. Therefore, he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use and occupation for the purpose of commencing the business ...
Tag this Judgment!Tatanagar Transport Corporation Vs. Dharmapal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2621
ORDERHakeem, J.1. In this revision petition under Section 56 (1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ('Act'), the tenant has challenged the legality and correctness of the order of the Trial Court whereby he has been directed to vacate and deliver possession of the premises in question to the landlord.2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of this case are as follows:The premises in question consists of a ground floor, 1st floor and the 2nd floor, situated at Siddaiah Road, Bangalore city. The tenant (respondent herein) is a partnership firm, admittedly carrying on transport business in the premises. The landlord sought for eviction of the tenant on the grounds under Section 21 (1) (h) and (p) of the Act. The rent of the premises is Rs. 900/- per month, the tenancy month being the calendar month.3. The landlord's case is that he was earlier living in a rented house. In pursuance of an eviction order dated 19-2-1974 passed in H.R.C. No. 199/196...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Venkatanarayana Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: ILR1985KAR2771
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1.Petitioner is aggrieved by the notification issued by the Respondent-State, dated 3-4-1978 by which 1 acre 16 guntas of land in Survey No. 105/1 of Periyapatna Town wasacquired pursuant to the earlier notification dated May 4th, 1977 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Exhibit-B).2. Aggrieved by the final notification, dated 3-4-1978, Exhibit-E, Petitioner challenges the same in this Courtinter alia contending that the acquisition was politically motivated on account of the petitioner not belonging to the Congress-I party and that in any event there was no properhearing as contemplated under Section 5A of Act. He has also further contended that there was no intimation sent to him of the report to the Government having been made ascontemplated under Section 5A of the Act.3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents has produced the records pertaining to the case. From the records, it is seen that petitioner had filed his ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaji Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC125; 1995(76)ELT262(Kar); ILR1985KAR1455; 1985(2)KarLJ101
ORDERV.S. Malimath, C.J.1. This is the second round before us. His first Writ Petition challenging the very detention was Writ Petition 138 of 1984 which we dismissed on the 25th of January, 1985. The petitioner has been detained in pursuance of the order made by the State Government under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Having failed to successfully assail this order of detention in the first Writ Petition, he has come forward with this second writ petition. It is necessary to point out that the first writ petition was also represented by the Counsel as is the present one. 2. In this writ petition, the only ground urged by Sri Jestmal, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the retrospective application of Section 123 of the Customs Act, would offend Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. Zip fasteners were seized from the custody of the petitioner on the 5th and 6th of June, 1984 on which date provisions...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »