Karnataka Court July 1993 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.
Bistappa Fakeerappa DandIn Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3615; 1993(4)KarLJ410
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, J. 1. The petitioner is Party No. 1 in MAG.C.R. 34/89-90 on the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gadag. He has in this Petition challenged the order dated 3.3.1990 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.PC., and appointing one of the Senior Principals of the Institution as Receiver to look after the management of the properties. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the President of the Kanakadasa Shikshana Samithi, Gadag. Respondents 2 to 6 claimed that they had managed the Institution. 3. On 24.4.1989 the Assistant Charity Commissioner passed an order declaring the petitioner as the President of the said Institution, Against this order, respondents-2 to 6 filed Appeals Nos. 11, 12 and 13/1989 before the learned Charity Commissioner, Belgaum. The learned Charity Commissioner dismissed these Appeals. 4. Against this order, Writ Petition No. 14105/1989 has been filed by respondents-2 to 6 and it is stated that it ...
B.N. Raghuram Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2332; 1993(3)KarLJ235
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. All these Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the learned Advocate General for the State. They are heard accordingly. 2. Since common questions of law based on similar facts arise for consideration in all these Writ Petitions, they are disposed of by this Common Order. 3. The petitioners in these Writ Petitions have questioned the Constitutional validity of amendment issued to Rule-5 of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (for short the Rules 1967) vide impugned Notification dated 21st June, 1993 in No.FD 20 PES 92 (Annexure-D in W.P.Nos. 22634 to 22660 of 1993) and have sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to renew the licences of the petitioners for the excise year 1993-94 without reference to the amended Rule-5. 4. There is no dispute on facts and briefly stated, they are: The petitioners are engaged in the business of liquor either...
Thammannegowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2097; 1993(3)KarLJ231
N.D.V. Bhat, J.1. In this Writ Appeal the appellant has challenged the Order dated 26th March 1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 17213/78. Before the learned single Judge the appellant who was the petitioner had challenged the order dated 2.11.1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, in Case No.SC.ST. 125/84-85 who dismissed the appeal preferred by the instant petitioner against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in No. HRC.KR. 321/79-80 dated 27.6.1980.2. Before the Assistant Commissioner the instant respondent No.4 (since deceased by LRs) had challenged the sale executed on 2.11.1966 on the ground that the same is hit by the mischief ofSection 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The learned Assistant Commissioner by his order took the view that the transaction took place on 2.11.1966 was within the non-alienation period and a...
Mangalore R.K. Beedies Vs. Mohammed Hanif
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2393; 1993(3)KarLJ37
Raveendran, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction in a passing off action, is the appellant in this Appeal. The suit filed by the appellant in O.S.No.2 of 1991 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore was dismissed by the Judgment and decree dated 17.9.1991. For convenience, the parties will be referred to by their respective ranks in the suit.2. The plaint averments in brief are: The plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing hand made branded beedies under the trade-name and style 'MANGALORE R,K. BEEDIES' and selling them in several States including Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra. The Licencing Authority under the Central Excise and Salt Act, has approved the label and wrappers with the aforesaid trade mark and granted a licence in the year 1986. The beedies manufactured by the plaintiff have earned a good reputation and market on account of their good and exquisite quality. The plaintiff is the Proprietor of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›