Karnataka Court August 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.
Geetha Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2897; 1993(3)KarLJ300
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of Rule 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules, 1993 ('the Rules' for short). The challenge is confined to the restriction as to the passing of P.U.C. during the period not exceeding two years prior to the year in which application is made for entrance test.2. In other words, by virtue of this Rule 3(1)(b) in the case of Common Entrance Test held during May 1993, only those who have passed P.U.C. after 1.4.1991 would be eligible. The relevant Rules read as follows :'3. Eligibility.- (1) No person shall be eligible for admission to any of the full time degree courses specified in Rule 1 unless he :-(a) xxx xxx xxx(b) has appeared for the three subjects namely, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics or Physics, Chemistry and Biology, as the case may be, in the Entrance test for selection to the courses s...
Jwalamala Plast Private Ltd. Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1993
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas281(Kar); ILR1993KAR2446; 1993(3)KarLJ312
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs : (1) Declare that the takeover of the assets of the petitioner and the subsequent proceedings taken for sale of the property are null and void as being violative of the principles of natural justice. (2) Issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to desist from giving effect to the alleged sale of the assets of the petitioner unit in favour of a third party. 2. The case of the petitioner briefly stated is : That the petitioner has availed of loan from respondent No. 1; a notice dated February 10, 1990, was issued to the petitioner that it was due in a sum of Rs. 34,58,642.80 under three accounts; one more notice was issued on July 20, 1991, that the amount due was Rs. 41,70,968.80; and when the payments were not made the assets of the petitioner were taken over by respondent No. 1, on March 8, 1991, under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). Further, the petitio...
Karnataka Weights and Measures Licence Holders Association Vs. Control ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2894; 1994(1)KarLJ224
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner is an Association of licence holders of repairers of weights/measures. The Association is aggrieved by the enforcement of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Rules 1988. The entire Rule 17 is quoted below:17. Fee for verification and stamping :-(1) Fees payable for verification and stamping of weights or measures at the office or camp office the Inspector shall be as specified in Schedule XII.(2) If, at the request of the user of weight or measure verification is done at any premises other than the office or camp office of the Inspector, an additional fee shall be charged at half the rates specified in schedule XII and the user of the weight or measure shall also pay the expenses incurred by the Inspector for visiting the premises including the cost of transporting the working standard and other equipment subject to a minimum of rupees ten.'(underlining is done here)2. According to the peti...
Mahaveer Drug House Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assess ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: [1994]93STC51(Kar)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. While, S.T.R.Ps. Nos. 66 to 68 of 1991 pertain to the assessment years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, S.T.R.P. No. 132 of 1991 pertains to the year 1978-79. Thus the entire period is from November 1, 1978 to November 4, 1983. In all these cases, the assessee questions the orders made by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes ('the D.C.' for short), in the exercise of his power of revision under section 21 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act' for short). In the first three revision petitions the orders were made on August 29, 1989. In respect of the year 1978-79 the order in revision was made on October 4, 1989. 2. After regular assessments were completed, the Deputy Commissioner issued notices under section 21(4) proposing to revise the assessment orders suo motu. The assessee challenged them by filling writ petitions, which were dismissed on April 1, 1986 [See Majaveer Drug House v. State of Karnataka , with certain observations. Thereafter, ...
Bharat Kumar Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3591
ORDERRaveendran, J. 1. The petitioner applied for grant of a stage carriage permit on 31.3.1992 under Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The second respondent (Regional Transport Authority, Mangalore), (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTA') considered the application on 7.8.1992 and granted the permit, subject however to the following condition: 'The grantee shall produce the documents of 1985 or later model vehicle within 30 days from the date of receipt of the proceedings of the Secretary assigning timings.... as the Authority is empowered under Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act to specify the particular description of vehicle...' The petitioner challenged the said order before the first respondent Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 581/1992 contending that the condition regarding age of the vehicle, imposed by the RTA was contrary to the statute. The Tribunal all...
ilyas Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1993
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1596
R.Ramakrishna, J.1. The Petitioner in Cr.P.No. 1030 of 1993 is accused No.3 in Crime No. 153 of 1993. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 1126 of 1993 is accused No.4 in the said Crime. The petitioners hereinafter referred to as Accused Nos. 3 and 4.2. The petitioners have filed these Petitions to release them on bail pending disposal of their case. The petitioners found to be in possession of Brown Sugar which attracts restrictions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS' Act). The case registered against the petitioners is punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act.3. Before deciding the above Petitions, a short narration of facts leading to the arrest of the petitioners are necessary and they are as follows:On 13.5.1993 at about 11 A.M. on some credible information, Surendra Naik, C.P.I, of Madiwal Sub-Division accompanied by M.M. Marihal, A.C.P., Ulsoor Gate Police Station and Ramalingam, P.S.I, of Adugodi Police Station came near the MIC...
Shivaram Jayavant Siddarkar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2891; 1994(1)KarLJ12
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner purchased the land bearing Survey No. 822 measuring seven guntas in Baad II village in the year 1972. After sometime he applied for the sanction of a building plan with an intention to put up the construction on the land. On 4.10.1985 petitioner was notified that the land in question was reserved for Nursery School and Play ground as per the Outline Development Plan (hereinafter referred to as ODP) of Karwar. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for permission to put up the construction. Petitioner also has asserted in the Writ Petition that the proceedings under Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short) has not been taken. The petitioner also has produced a copy of the notice issued by him to the respondent on 30.10.1985 under Section 69. In the notice he has stated that if the land is not acquired as provided under Section 69 the petitioner intends to obtain the permission to construct t...
Vyasya Bank Ltd. Vs. M. Namadeva Pai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR3217; (1994)IILLJ954Kant
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J. 1. Though the Petitions are listed for Preliminary Hearing, since the first respondent had entered Caveat, the Petitions are taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. 2. These two writ Petitions are by the same petitioners against two orders passed by the second respondent in Reference No. 22/89. In W. P. No. 17495/92, the petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 18.8.1992 passed by the second respondent, answering the preliminary issue against the petitioner, and, the order dated 5.3.1993 directing the petitioner to pay the first respondent 50% of gross salary with effect from 1.10.1992 as an interim-relief, is sought to be quashed in W. P. No. 17496/93. 3. Shri B. C. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the validity of the order impugned in W. P. No. 17496/93 is dependent upon the validity of the order impugned in W. P. No. 17495/93 by which the domestic enquiry has been set aside. A...
Nagendrappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1993
Reported in: ILR1993KAR2361; 1994(3)KarLJ320
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J. 1. Mr. Dabali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is a circular against the issuance of licences afresh and therefore this Writ Petition shall be considered in the 'B' group itself. 2. The practice is to place a Writ Petition filed, for consideration of the Court as to whether it discloses a prima facie case; this is done at the preliminary hearing stage. Rule 13 of the Writ Proceedings Rules 1977 governs the procedure. As per Clause (a), Court shall direct a rule nisi to the respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why the order sought should not be made, the concept of 'Rule Nisi' is embodied in the very clause, where it says that the respondent is called upon 'to show cause why the order sought should not be made'. A proviso is engrafted to this clause which says that where the Court 'deems fit', it may, before directing issue of rule nisi, direct notice to the respondent to show cause why Rule Nisi should not be issued. As per C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›