Karnataka Court April 1989 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.
D. Ramesh Vs. Govt. of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-13-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2694; 1989(2)KarLJ602
ORDER1. In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for striking down Regulation 4(e)(1) of the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gratuity Regulations') framed by the second respondent as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and also being inconsistent with the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to pay the amount of gratuity which is legally due to him with compound interest, compensation and penalty. 2. The facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are not in dispute. The petitioner joined the service in the month of April 1970 as commodity Analyst/Economist under respondent No. 2 at Delhi on a salary of Rs. 780/- p.m. He served in that capacity at Delhi till July 1975. In the month of July 1975 on promotion as Mar...
G. Hampamma Vs. Kartigi Sajjivalada Kalingappa and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-12-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant128; ILR1989KAR2764; 1989(2)KarLJ523
1. Unsuccessful plaintiff in the courts below is the appellant. Her suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and ascertainment of mesne profits has been dismissed by both the courts. The question of law that arises for determination is, when does the title in the immoveable property pass to the purchaser; does it pass on the registration of sale deed or on the payment of consideration, if it had remained unpaid.2. The facts leading to his appeal are as follows :House bearing door No. 47 is Ward No. 5 in Town Panchayat, Kampli belonged to defendants. By sale deed executed on 26-6-1972, and registered on 24-8-1972, the house was sold to plaintiff for Rs. 5,000/-. Though the deed recited that possession was delivered,it was indeed not. Hence this suit.2A. The defendants admitted that they had agreed to sell the house; their main defence was that sale consideration was agreed at Rs. 9000/-; out of which Rs. 5,000/-was to be mentioned in the sale deed to be paid before the Sub-...
Nanjanayaka and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-11-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant97; 1989(2)KarLJ202
ORDER1. Common prayer in these series is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to forbear respondents from interfering with their right to excavate, remove and transport granite found in his/their patta land/s.2. Most of the petitioners are from old State of Mysore and a few from Kollegal, which on re-organization has become part and parcel of Mysore District. They trace their right to excavate granite either to proviso to S. 38 of Mysore Land Revenue Code and notification issued thereunder or the Madras Board Standing Order. In support of their prayer, reliance is placed on catena of decisions of this Court to which a reference would be made a little later.3. Respondents in their statement of objections dispute their right to extract minor minerals except in accordance with the Rules framed under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Specific reference is made to Ch. II of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessio...
Vijayvikram College of Engineering, Bangalore Vs. Deputy Educational A ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant29; 1989(3)KarLJ338
ORDER1. The petitioner is 'Vijay-vikram College of Engineering' which is said to have been established at Bangalore in the year 1986-87 by the Karnataka Technical andManagement Education Society (Regd.), Bangalore, It claims to have obtained affiliation from 'Maithili University', Dharbanga, Bihar State, to admit and teach the students for graduate course in Engineering. It also claims that it has admitted certain students coming from different parts of the country for Us degree course in Engineering and taught them for one academic year. According to it, the Maithili University, from which it has obtained affiliation, is a recognised University, in that, the Directory of Institutions for Higher Education of the year 1979-80 (Annexure A) published by the Ministry of Education and Culture, Government of India, has listed the Maithili Vishwavidyapeetha (Maithili University) as a University in Bihar State. The case set out in the petition is that the letter dated 11-4-1985 (Annexure D) se...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amco Batteries Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: [1993]203ITR614(KAR); [1993]203ITR614(Karn)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The following questions of law have been referred for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order who held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40 per cent. on moulds used by it for making rubber containers 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order who held that borewell cannot be held to fall under the description of 'hydraulic works' and allowed depreciation at 10 per cent. instead of 5 per cent. allowed by the Income-tax Officer 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in justifying the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision in deleting the disallowance made under section...
K.L. Madhusudhan Vs. Secretary, Keb.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-10-1989
Reported in: ILR1990KAR1182; 1989(3)KarLJ537
ORDERK.A. Swami, J. 1. As these petitions can be disposed of on a short point, Rule is issued and they are heard for final disposal.2. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners who are the employees of the Karnataka Electricity Board (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KEB') have sought for issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the KEB to sanction to them 4 increments in advance from the date they entered service on the ground that they had acquired the qualification of graduation before they entered the service.3. The service particulars of each of the petitioners and the dates of passing the degree examination are as follows:Sl. No.Petitioner inPayScaleDate ofreporting for dutyDate ofpassing the degree Rs. 1.W.P.4649/89755-172014-7-87Priorto entry into service2.W.P.4650/89755-17208-5-86-do-3.W.P.3363/89-do-9-7-86-do-4.W.P.3364/89415-93020-11-85January19815.W.P.3365/89-do-25-9-90Priorto entry into service6.W.P.3366/89385-78024-9-8019...
M.L. Narasimha Gupta Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bangalore a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1989
Reported in: 1989(2)KarLJ353; [1989]75STC154(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. The learned Government Pleader was directed to take notice regarding rule and stay of recovery by the Tahsildar pursuant to annexure-A was stayed for a period of four weeks. The writ petitions are disposed of issuing rule and after hearing both sides. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in these writ petitions is that no order is made so far on the stay applications filed along with the two appeals on 11th October, 1988, against the two ex parte assessment orders for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83. In the meanwhile, the assessing authority has issued a certificate to the Tahsildar for recoveries, to recover the entire tax in dispute, pursuant to which the Tahsildar has now issued notice of recovery under rule 112 of the Land Revenue Rules. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately after the notice of assessment was served on him, appeals were filed for both the years within time before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), B...
K.C. Saree Emporium Vs. Achal Chand K. Kothari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-06-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR1981
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. This Revision Petition is by the owner of the premises, arising out of an order rejecting I.A.No.VIII filed by it, in an Execution proceedings initiated by the erstwhile tenant of the premises. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner is referred as 'the landlord' and the respondent, 'the tenant', hereinafter.2. In the year 1984, the landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a premises bearing No. 99 in Chowdeshwari Temple Street, Bangalore, under Section 21(1)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short, 'the Act'). The landlord asserted that the said premises was an old one and the landlord intended to put up a new and modern building of a substantial structure, consisting of 2 to 4 floors etc.3. The parties, at that time settled the matter of eviction amicably; the tenant agreed to vacate the premises within a month and the landlord agreed to vacate the premises within a month and the landlord agreed to put up the new building within six months...
Akka Bai and Another Vs. Gowrawwa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant278; 1991(4)KarLJ756
ORDERChandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. This appeal was originally listed for disposal on this day on account of the order made by us on 3rd March, 1989 recording a compromise under 0.23, R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On that day, the compromise was accepted in person by the parties concerned who were present in Court. By the detailed order made, which is part of the records now, we had even satisfied ourselves that the person in Court claiming to be the respondent was indeed the respondent That became necessary in the light of the conduct of the counsel who was appearing originally for the respondent to which also we have made a detailed reference in the order of March 3, 1989. In fact on that day, the learned Counsel chose to file a memo of retirement from the case for want of instructions and in the light of the fact that respondent-Gowrawwa had engaged another counsel who was present in Court along with the respondent when the petition for compromise under O. 23, R. 4 of the Code of...
B.A. Bhat Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ266Kant
1. At the stage of preliminary hearing notice was ordered to the respondents. Accordingly, learned counsel, Sri Radesh Prabhu, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and the statement of objections is also filed. As the petition turns upon a short point, rule is issued and it is heard for final disposal. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs : To - (a) declare by the issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be, declaring the view entertained by the Disciplinary Authority in proceeding with the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the liberty reserved by this Hon'ble Court, without reinstating the petitioner in service and granting him all consequential benefits flowing from the success of the petitioner in the writ petition, as illegal, arbitrary and void, with a further declaration that the respondents would not get authority and power to proceed with the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »