Karnataka Court March 1992 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.
Ratnamma Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-19-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1792; 1992(2)KarLJ354; (1992)IILLJ882Kant
ORDER1. This writ petition, though listed for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel representing the parties, it is deemed to have been posted for final disposal and heard them accordingly. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition are neither in controversy nor debated. However, the facts are briefly set out below in order to understand the contentions of the parties as to how the 'reckonable service' is to be understood. One K. Eshwarappa was working as Field Assistant in Vanivilas Co-operative Sugar Factory - the third respondent herein having joined service on May 1, 1972. Due to shortage of raw-materials, third respondent laid off the services of the employees including the said Eshwarappa from April 3, 1985. During the period of lay-off the said Eshwarappa - the husband of the petitioner - died on July 14, 1988. The petitioner contends that her husband was a subscriber to the employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund. As such, she was entitled to get family pens...
B. Veeranna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1683; 1992(3)KarLJ82
ORDERM. Ramakrishna, J. 1. This is a public litigation Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in which the petitioners have challenged the action taken by the respondents and have sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents-1 to 3:(1) not to convert the Gomal land and form sites in Sy.No. 19 at Bidalota Village, Holavanahall; Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, measuring 30 acres 19 guntas and to grant such other relief as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice.The brief facts of the case are as follows :Sy.No. 19 of Bidalota Village measures about 30 acres 19 guntas. It is stated that there is a large number of population in the village Bidalota with a large number of cattle. The land in question was ear-marked as Gomal to wit, to graze the cattle of the village. To demonstrate this, Index of lands, Annexure-A is produced, wherein it is mentioned that the Competent Authority by its order dated 24.4.1947 in proceedin...
Mohan P. Sonu Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-18-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1219; 1992(2)KarLJ245
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The appellant had purchased property measuring 14' x 50' at the junction of Middle School road and the then Telephone Exchange road in Shikaripur town. There was, adjacent to the property so purchased, vacant land (now called the 'said land') and measuring 5' x 50'. The said land belonged to the Town Municipal Council, Shikaripur. On 9th March 1983 the appellant applied to the Town Municipal Council for allotment to him of the said land. Upon the application, a resolution was passed on 17th May 1983. It was resolved that the said land lacked public demand since it was not an independent site but was useful only to the property belonging to the appellant. Hence, to enable the Municipal Council to obtain income therefor, it was recommended that the said land be granted to the appellant. The recommendation was forwarded to the State Government. The State Government, on 15th March 1984, accorded sanction under Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 to t...
Ramaiah Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2193; 1992(2)KarLJ670
Rama Jois, J. 1. In this Appeal presented under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the following question of law arises for consideration:'Whether on a Memorandum of Appeal presented against an award made by the Court in a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant is liable to pay Court fee on the amount of solatium which is required to be granted on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act?'2. The brief facts of the case which have given rise to the above question are as follows; The appellant, in his reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claimed a compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for the land acquired. The City Civil Court hearing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 61,500/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant has presented this Appeal claiming the balance of compensatio...
Ramaiah Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-17-1992
Reported in: I(1993)ACC360
M. Rama Jois and R. Ramakrishna, JJ.1. In this Appeal presented under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the following question of law arises for consideration:Whether on a Memorandum of Appeal presented against an award made by the Court in a Reference under Section18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant is liable to pay Court fee on the amount of solatium which is required to be granted on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act2. The brief facts of the case which have given rise to the above question are as follows: The appellant, in his reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, claimed a compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for the land acquired. The City Civil Court hearing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 61,500/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant has presented this Appeal claiming the bala...
Nirmal Agency Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Xiv Circle, Bangalore and An ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1215
S.P. Bharucha, C.J. 1. The appeal is filed to challenge the order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant, which is a partnership firm, carried on at the relevant time, i.e., for the year ending 30th June 1986, business as an agent for the Bhutan Government State Lottery. Subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in H. Anraj v. Government of Tamil Nadu : AIR1986SC63 , it sought from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, a clarification as to whether or not lottery tickets could be said to fall within the definition of a word 'goods' for the purposes of commercial tax. The clarification was issued on 17th September, 1986. It only informed the appellant that tax is leviable on the sale price of lottery tickets, i.e., on the total amount received towards the sale of lottery tickets. The assessment of the appellant for the concerned assessment year was made accordingly and it was held that the decision in Anraj's case : AIR1986SC63 , was inapplic...
Katkam Ramakrishna Vs. City Municipal Council
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-13-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR1964; 1992(2)KarLJ139
Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-7-1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Raichur, while dismissing the appeal, has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 1-10-1981 passed in O.S.No. 18/80 by the Court of Munsiff, Raichur.The parties are described in their ranks as in the O.S.2. This Court, at the time of admission of this Appeal, has formulated the following points as substantial questions of law arising for consideration:-1) Whether the repairs to the shed would amount to reconstruction as held by the Courts below? 2) Whether the Municipality has authority to direct demolition of a shed which is merely a repairs? 3. Few facts briefly to state are:-The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant seeking the following reliefs: 'That the suit of the plaintiff be decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining it and its agents and servants from dismantling the suit shed as described in para N...
Papanna Vs. Madappa and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Kant24; 1992(2)KarLJ527
ORDERK. A. Swami, J. 1. This appeal by the first defendant, is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19th November, 1991 passed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Mysore in O.S. No. 398/1987. 2. The first respondent-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of his 6/20th share in the suit schedule properties. 3. In this case, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. The relationship between the parties is as follows. LINGEGOWDA (died in 1967) |__________________________________________________________________ | | | | | Papanna Ramanna Madappa Madamma Puttatayamma D-1 (died on (Plaintiff) D-10 D-11 12-6-1986) | Ningamma (wife) D-2 |_________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | | Madappa Ninganna Ramesh Krishna Padma Yashoda Sunanda D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-8 D-94. Lingegowda died in 1967. He had thre...
Management of Nippani Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Workmen
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR213]; ILR1992KAR1211; 1992(2)KarLJ136
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.1. The learned single Judge made the Writ Petition filed by the respondent to the Appeal absolute. He quashed the order passed by the Labour Court and the order of transfer made by the appellant in respect of two of its workmen - DP. Dabode and G.P. Bhilawade.2. Briefly stated, the facts are these:At the time when the said two workmen were employed by the appellant as clerks, the appellant was functioning as a Bank only at Nippani. It had no branch whatever. A branch at Benadi was opened subsequently; and, on 29th December 1978, the said workmen were transferred to work in the Benadi branch with effect from 1st January 1979. The said workmen did not join duty at the Benadi branch, but raised an industrial dispute contending that the appellant had no power to transfer them to work in the Benadi branch in the absence of any agreement which permitted a transfer. The Labour Court rejected the contention. The decision of the Labour Court was impugned by the trade union of...
Papanna Vs. Madappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2026
K.A. Swami, J. 1. This Appeal by the first defendant, is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 19th November 1991 passed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Mysore in O.S.No. 398/1987.2. The first respondent-plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of his 6/20th share in the suit schedule properties.3. In this case, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. The relationship between the parties is as follows; LINGEGOWADA (died in 1967) | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Papanna Ramanna Madappa Madamma Puttatayamma D-1 (died on (plaintiff) D-10 D11 12.6.1986 | Ningamma (wife) D-2 | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | Madappa Ningamma Ramesh Krishna Padma Yashoda Sunanda D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 D-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »