Karnataka Court September 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.
K. Shivananda Shenoy Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Kant302; ILR1989KAR3357; 1989(2)KarLJ496
ORDER1. Issue rule.2. The petitioner having purchased some land from one David Pinto wanted to sell 5 cents thereof to one Mangesh Pai and, therefore, gave notice of such intention to transfer land to the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short the Act) under S. 26 of the Act. The competent authority who received that notice on 25-11-1988 passed an order on 11-4-1989 as follows :(Vernacular matter omitted -- Ed.)A plain reading of the above order makes it clear that the competent authority had stated that it would consider acquiring the land proposed to be sold by the petitioner in favour of the prospective vendee Mangesh Pai, only in the event the said authority not being able to find other vacant land for being acquired. It further states that subject to such a condition, the application made by the petitioner under S. 26 of the Act was accepted.3. Relevant portions of S, 26 reads :'26. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other ...
Phillipos and Company and Others Vs. the State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1989
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas154(Kar); ILR1989KAR3135
1. The question which arises for consideration in this petition filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (the code for short) is : Whether a 'firm of chartered accountants' is an 'establishment' within the meaning of the expression in section 2(i) of the karnataka shops and commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (Act No. 8 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961). 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as below: Philipos and company is a registered partnership firm of chartered accountants, having its office at No. 12, Davis Road, Bangalore-560 084, post Box No. 8401. This partnership firm of chartered accountants (herein after referred to as the firm) is also registered under the chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ACt of 1949). Wg. Cdr. A Philipos (petitioner NO. 2). Ashok Kumar (petitioner No. 3), B. Satyanaryan (petitioner No. 4) and joseph Philipos (petitioner No. 5), chartered accountants, are the partners of the firm....
Phillipos and Co. Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1989
Reported in: [1990]67CompCas453a(Kar); 1989(3)KarLJ473; (1990)ILLJ227Kant
ORDER1. The question which arises for consideration in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short) is : Whether a 'Firm of Chartered Accountants' is an 'Establishment' within the meaning of the expression in Section 2(e) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (Act No. 8 of 1962). (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961). 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as below. Phillipos & Company is a registered Partnership Firm of Chartered Accountants, having its office at No. 12, Davis Road, Bangalore-560084, Post Box No. 8401. The Partnership Firm of Chartered Accountants (hereinafter referred to as the Firm) is also registered under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1949). Wg. Cdr. A. Phillipos (petitioner No. 2), Ashok Kumar (petitioner No. 3), B. Satyanaryan (petitioner No. 4) and Joseph Phillipos (petitioner No. 5) - the Chartered Accountants - are the partners...
D.K. Janaki Vs. Dr. Linga Raju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1989
Reported in: I(1990)DMC121; ILR1989KAR3048; 1989(3)KarLJ308
ORDERBalakrishna, J 1. This is a Civil Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking transfer of case No. M.C.2 of1989 which is pending before the Civil Judge, Hassan, to the Family Court at bangalore for being tried along with P.Mis.No. 12 of 1989.2. The material facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was married to the respondent on 12-6-1977 at Bangalore and, out of the wedlock, are born a son on 22-10-1978 and a daughter on 2-5-1985 at Bangalore. The parents of the petitioner have settled down in Bangalore since 1972, according to the petitioner. The respondent is a Surgeon who is working in a Hospital at Hassan being a Government employee. According to the respondent, he is a specialist in general surgery conducting 15 to 20 operations a week in the hospital at Hassan. The respondent preferred a petition for divorce against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Hassan, in M.C.No. 2 of 1989. ...
B.R. Somashekarappa Vs. Vignan Industries Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: [1991]70CompCas850(Kar); ILR1990KAR638; 1989(2)KarLJ404; (1990)IILLJ414Kant
1. The petitioner, admittedly, is an ex-employee of the respondent-company. Many of the facts are not in dispute and they are as under; he was employed as a full-time technical director on a specified salary allowance and other perquisites that went with it. In accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act and the Rules made thereunder, his appointment was approved by the Company Law Board. After the first period of appointment expired, it was further extended on October 30, 1973, for a further period of five years. That was also approved by the Company Law Board. However, he tendered his resignation, allegedly at the request of the Government of Karnataka. His resignation came to be accepted by the respondent-company. Thereafter, he claimed that a sum of employment and the company not having paid the said amount despite repeated demands and a registered notice, he presented this petition under section 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act for an order winding up the company as i...
B.R. Somasekharappa Vs. Vignan Industries Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ414Kant
ORDER1. Petitioner admittedly is an ex-employee of the respondent company. Many of the facts are not in dispute and they are, he was employed as a full time Technical Director on a specified salary and allowances and other perquisites that went with it. In accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act and the Rules made thereunder his appointment was approved by the Company Law Board. After the first period of appointment expired, it was further extended on 30th November 1973 for a period of five years. That was also approved by the Company Law Board. However, he tendered his resignation, allegedly at the request of the Government of Karnataka. His resignation came to be accepted by the respondent company. Thereafter he claimed that a sum of Rs. 4,02,828.90 was due on account of premature termination of his employment and the company not having paid the said amount despite repeated demands and a registered notice, he presented this petition under Section 433(e) and (f) of the C...
S. Vasudeva and Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR39
ORDERK.A. Swami, J 1. RELIEFS: .These petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking various reliefs. The reliefs sought for in W.P.Nos. 8546 to 8548/88 also cover the reliefs sought for in W.P.No. 15377/88. Therefore, the reliefs sought for in W.P.No. 15377/88 are not specifically stated. Further in a public interest petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the reliefs can be moulded according to the findings arrived at. The objection as to absence of a specific prayer in a public interest petition as in a private interest litigation does nor assume any importance. The reliefs sought for in W.P.Nos. 8546 to 8548/88 as follows:'Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue:a) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action for forfeiture of the land for contravention of Section 79 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act;b) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to acquire the land for the purpose...
Kalyana Sundari Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: I(1990)ACC494
M. Rama Jois, J.1. This appeal is by the claimant aggrieved by the quantum .of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore city in a claim petition presented by her under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The petitioner who was aged 12 years filed the claim petition claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by her in an accident involving scooter bearing No. C AE152, on 26.6.1982 at about 9.30 a.m. while she was crossing the 5th Main Road, Sriramapuram, Bangalore. On the question of negligence, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner had claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/-. The learned Judge awarded a compensation of Rs. 23. 000/- as general damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards medical expenses.3. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation the appellant has presented this appeal. It is in evidence given by the appellant that after ...
Sri Virupaksha Enterprises and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Harapa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR3163
ORDERS.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. 1. In these cases the construction of Notification No. FD 34 CSL 87 (III) dated 28th March, 1987, issued by the Government under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), is involved. It is necessary to reproduce the said notification for ready reference. It reads : 'In exercise of the powers conferred by section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957), the Government of Karnataka hereby exempts with effect from the 1st day of April, 1987, the tax payable under section 5 of the said Act, by a dealer on 'groundnuts/seeds' as the last purchaser liable to tax, if such groundnuts/seeds are consumed by him in the manufacture of non-refined groundnut oil in the State and produces the proof of payment of tax on the sales of such oil made within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce inside the State.' 2. By Notification V No. FD 51 CSL 83(V) dated 31st March, 1983, issued by the Government un...
All Ameen Educational Society, Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1989
Reported in: ILR1989KAR2715; 1989(3)KarLJ104
Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. These Writ Appeals are filed against Orders made in several Writ Petitions, whereby the petitioners sought for appropriate Writ or direction to the respondents to grant affiliations to their respective College of Education (B.Ed., College) or Teaching Training Institute (TCH course); the decision of the State Government not to permit affiliation to any new B.Ed., College or institution teaching for TCH course etc., till the end of VII Five Year Plan period also was challenged. The Writ Petitions were dismissed. The main Judgment of the learned single Judge is reported in SARABHESHWARA VIDYA PEETH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA : ILR1988KAR3182 .The four appeals are by Institutions organised by persons who claim to be religious minorities (three by the Muslims and one by the Jains). W.A.No. 1675 of 1988 is not by any minority group.2. The facts, are similar in all the cases; (except in W.A.No. 1738/1988 which pertains to the permission to start an institution to train st...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »