Karnataka Court July 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.
B. Vishwanatha Shetty Vs. P.N. Padmavathi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2424; 1992(3)KarLJ330
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J.1. These two Revision Petitions are directed against the common order on I ANos.III and VI in O.S.No.1061 of 1984 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore. The facts leading to these two Petitions, briefly stated, are as under:2. Plaintiffs and defendants-2 and 3 in O.S.No.1061/1984 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore are the legal heirs of late P.Narayana Hebbar. The suit property was the absolute property of Narayana Hebbar. It consists of three storeyed building where Narayana Hebbar was running a Hotel by name 'Eastern Lunch Home', Since his health deteriorated, he and his eldest son P.Parameshwara Hebbar -defendant-2 formed a partnership firm and the management of the Hotel was left to the latter. Since,-however, the business did not improve, the Hotel was leased to M/s.Elengikal Brothers, by a registered deed dated 25-3-1964. However, the same was sub-leased by the latter to defendant-1 - B.VishwanathaShetty, who is the petitioner in both these Revisi...
P. Adhishesha Reddy and Others Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1992
Reported in: [1992(65)FLR917]; ILR1992KAR2887; 1992(3)KarLJ586; (1993)ILLJ379Kant
1. The petitioners are employees of the Bharat Gold Mines Limited which is a Government of India Enterprise. Their service conditions are governed by the rules framed by the management. Regarding the age of retirement, the rules speak that the normal age of 58 years of retirement may be extended by two years. The petitioners have worked for more than two decades in different capacities. Later, they submitted an application requesting the respondents/management to permit them to retire from service voluntarily. In support of their case, reliance was placed on the notification bearing No. PD/OE-KM/V.1/89-90/2125, dated October 17, 1989 produced at Annexure-A, But, their requests were not considered by the management. On the other hand, the management said that the retirement of the petitioners on voluntary basis cannot be granted as their services are required by the management. In support of their contentions, the respondents produced Annexures R-1 and R-2. Annexure R-1 reads as follows...
Ganganarasaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1992
Reported in: ILR1992KAR2629; 1993(2)KarLJ385
ORDERHanumanthappa, J. 1. The petitioner who was appointed as Hamali on 2-7-1984 by the Department of Commercial Taxes on daily wage basis was terminated on the report submitted by the Lokayuktha without even serving a notice on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the petitioner approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal with an application bearing No. 212/92. The Tribunal, by its order dated 27-3-1992 dismissed the said application on the ground that Hamali as not a holder of civil post, as such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 seeking the relief namely, to quash the order at Annexure A dated 3-3-1992 by which the petitioner was terminated from service on the ground that the same as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to principles of natural justice. He has also sought for an interim order. 2. Notice was ordered to the learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. The ma...
State of Karnataka Vs. Begees Foods (P.) Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1992
Reported in: [1993]88STC451(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. It is unnecessary to narrate the facts as they are not in dispute. The question raised by the respective parties pertain to section 18 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). 2. The assessees are all new industrial units and there is also no dispute that they are eligible to the benefits conferred by a notification issued under section 8A of the Act. The notification is dated 15th October, 1981. The relevant para of the said notification reads thus : 'Notification, Bangalore, dated 15th October, 1981S.O. 2297. - In supersession of Government Orders numbers :1. CI 58 FMI 69, dated 30th June, 19692. CI 87 FMI 76, dated 8th August, 19753. FD 396 CSI 74, dated 11th August, 19754. CI 183 FMI 75, dated 17th November. 19755. CI 141 FMI 76, dated 12th January, 1977 3. In so far as they authorise the refund of sales tax on raw materials to new industries and all other Government Orders previously issued on the subject and in exercise of the powers...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›