Karnataka Court September 1988 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.
The Workmen of Gowribidanur Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. Vs. the Man ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)KarLJ32; (1993)IIILLJ552Kant
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Ka-rnataka, Bangalore, dated 14.8.1985 in Misc. Application No, 3 of 1984 rejecting the application of the writ petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award passed in I.D. No. 2 of 1977 and for restoration of the original reference for disposal on merits.2. It is not necessary to go into details of the case for the purpose of considering whether the 2nd respondent was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for restoration of the reference.3. On 3.9.1984, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal even up to 4 p.m. and, therefore, the case was posted to the next day for passing an award. On 4.9.1984, the Tribunal passed an award rejecting the reference. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Misc. Application No. 3 of 1984 for setting aside the ex parte award. The Tribunal, after considering the application, held that there was no sufficient cause for non-ap...
B.K. Ramesh Rao Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1680
ORDERBalakrishna, J. 1. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing after notice to respondents, is taken up for final hearing by consent of learned Counsel for both the parties and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioner has described himself as a Member of the Mandal Panchayath of Belavinakoduge, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagalur District in the cause-title. However, in the memorandum of the Writ Petition there is no exact description as to the status of the petitioner in relation to the said Mandal Panchayath. At the time of argument, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is representing a local authority which is a Mandal Panchayath of Belavinakoduge of Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagalur District.3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is operating a stage carriage service on the route Sringeri to Sagar. Previously the said service was being operated as a shuttle service between Ripponpet and Sagar. But, after an order passed by the ...
Ningayya Erayya Hiremath Vs. Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2915; 1988(3)KarLJ60
Prem Chand Jain, C. J.1. Ningayya Erayya Hiremath has filed this appeal against the Judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated March 13, 1985 by which Writ Petition No. 19787/81 filed by him has been dismissed. In order to appreciate the controversy certain salient features of the case may be noticed.2. Land bearing survey number 127 of the village Naganoor, Taluk - Mundgod, District - Uttar Kannada, measures 11 acres 34 guntas. Out of the sard land an area of 5 acres and 12 guntas belongs to Rudragowda Bin Gurappagowda respondent No. 5 and an area of 6 acres and 22 guntas belongs to one Danappa Nagappa Vaddar. Rudragowda Bin Gurappagowda, respondent No. 5, had leased the area belonging to him to Siddawwa Kom Uduchappa Vaddar respondent No. 3. It transpires that the said respondent No. 3 had, sometime in the year 1972, raised a loan by mortgaging her tenancy rights in favour of a Co-operative Society and as she failed to pay the said loan her tenancy right was brought to sa...
Consolidated Coffee Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Coffee Board and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1532; 1988(2)KarLJ488; [1989]74STC272(Kar)
M. Rama Jois, J.1. In these petitions, presented by the coffee planters, the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether, the respondent - Coffee Board is authorised in law to pay the tax which it is liable to pay to the Karnataka Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, out of the pool fund which it is required to maintain, under section 30 of the Coffee Act, 1942 ?' 2. The brief facts and circumstances of the case which have given rise to the above question are these : The Coffee Board ('the Board' for short) is constituted under the Coffee Act, 1942 ('the Act' for short) enacted for the development of the coffee industry under the control of the union. The Board is the statutory authority on which the exclusive right to purchase and sell the coffee produced in the country is conferred under the provisions of the Act. The Act brought into existence a pool marketing system for coffee produced in the country. Section 22 of the Act, however, prov...
Hanumegowda Vs. Sudarshanachar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3238
Shyamasundar, J.1. The pursuer herein is the defendant in O.S.42 of 1970 on the file of the Civil Judge, Mandya which was initially instituted in the Court of Munsiff, Mandya in O.S. 163/66 but the vicissitudes of that suit finally led to the archives of the Civil Judge, Mandya to be reborn as O.S.42/70 at which stage some more defendants had been brought on record who, however, did not evince any interest in the aforesaid proceeding which has been mainly fought out between the pursuer in this appeal viz., the first defendant in the suit and the plaintiff who is currently the sole contesting respondent herein.2. I shall refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant during the course of this Judgment.3. The plaintiff who holds a Bachelor's Degree in Arts, appears interested in speculative land deals. On obtaining grant of substantial chunks of land in Sy.No. 1 108/16 of Doddarasnakere village from Government the plaintiff sold the same in bits to the defendant No. 1 and other defendan...
V. Subba Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR101
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioners who were Councillors of the concerned Town Municipal Council have assailed the legality and validity of the exclusion of their Town Municipal Councils from the purview of the Notification dated 30-7-1988 issued by the respondent State of Karnataka in purported exercise of its power under Section 18 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (the Act for short) and the orders passed under Sub-section 1 of Section 315 of the Act appointing Administrators to the Town Municipal Councils in question on the same day which are produced as annexures to the petitions. The Town Municipal Council involved in W.P. 11357/1988 is Chintamani. In the other petitions Hassan, Koppal and Ranebennur Town Municipal Councils are the affected Municipalities.2. The brief facts which are not in dispute are as follows:The terms of Office of the Municipal Councils in all these cases expired sometime at the beginning of the latter half of the year ...
B. Venkataswamy Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR75
ORDERBopanna, J. 1. These two petitions are disposed of by a common order since common questions of law arise for consideration in both these petitions.2. In Writ Petition No. 11976 of 1984 the preliminary notification in respect of the land in question was made on 21-3-1977 and the final notification was made on 14-5-1980. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition in the year 1984. In Writ Petition No. 17534 of 1087 the preliminary notification was made on 9-5-1968 and the final notification was made on 28-10-1971. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were served on the petitioners on 7-12-1978, The award was passed on 4-6-1981. Award notices were served on the petitioners on 17-11-1981. The petitioners have filed their claim petition claiming compensation as per Annexures B and C on 17-11-1978. All the same in both the petitions the petitioners have challenged the Impugned acquisition proceedings on the basis of certain resolutions passed by the Bangalore Dev...
M.N. Muddiah Setty Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1516; 1988(2)KarLJ547
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 12-8-1988; of the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Chickballapur dated 12-8-1988 by which the application made by the appellant before the said Appellate Authority came to be rejected. That application was for leading additional evidence. Appellate Authority constituted under Section 118 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act exercises its power against any order passed by the Land Tribunal. Its procedure is governed by statutory Rules made and known as the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority Rules, 1986. Under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 9 of the said Rules it is provided that the parties to the appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary before the Appellate Authority unless the Tribunal from whose order the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which sought to have been submitted; or the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establ...
Chayadevi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3125; 1988(2)KarLJ444
ORDERBalakrishna, J.1. These Writ Petitions are preferred against the acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the preliminary notification of acquisition dated 19-9-1977 and the final notification of acquisition dated 7-2-1978 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 9-3-1978 ending with 9-3-1983.2. The material facts are these:The respondents initiated the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners described in detail in the schedules to these Writ Petitions besides other lands for the purpose of formation of a layout called Byrasandra-Thavarekere-Madivala Scheme (for short 'B.T.M. Scheme'). The preliminary notification of acquisition dated 19-9-1977 was published in the Official Gazette dated 29-9-1977. The final notification of acquisition dated 7-2-1978 was published in the Official Gazette dated 9-3-1978.3. The lands of the petitioners are covered by these acquisition proceedings. According to the petitioners, the implementation of the entire...
Guddanagouda Tirukanagouda Patil Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-14-1988
Reported in: ILR1988KAR3135; 1989(1)KarLJ118
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs :'a) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order vide Annexure-D dated 2-8-1988 in No. RTS/AP/75/87 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Haveri Sub-Division, Haveri.b) Issue any other Writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, including costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity.'2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal preferred before the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 31-8-1987 passed by the Tahsildar, Haveri in Case No. RTS.CR. 121/87-88 was not maintainable because the order of the Tahsildar did not fall either under Section 128 or under Section 129 of the Act. Hence the order of the Assistant Commis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »