Karnataka Court October 1994 Judgments
M/S. Safeguard Packaging Systems Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-31-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant336; ILR1995KAR315; 1995(2)KarLJ442
ORDER1. Sri Ganachari, learned HCGP is directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents.2. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board' or 'KIADB') is a statutory body established and incorporated under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966. The main functions of the said Board is to establish and develop industrial areas and make available industrial sites to industrial undertakings to establish themselves for the rapid and orderly establishment and growthof industries in Karnataka and to maintain, develop and manage industrial estates within industrial areas. The Board allotted Plot No. 2A of Dyavasandra, II Phase, Industrial Area, Bangalore, measuring 5110 sq. mt. to the petitioner under an Agreement dated 26-3-1980 subject to performance and observance of the conditions of the said agreement.3. After the petitioner fulfilled the conditions of the said agreement, the Board conveyed the said site to the petitioner under a r...
Tag this Judgment!M.i. Metal Sections Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1994
Reported in: 1994(48)ECC165; 1995(75)ELT470(Kar); ILR1994KAR3242; 1994(5)KarLJ228
G.T. Nanavati, C.J.1. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- as against the excise duty and penalty liability of Rs. 82,30,908.62 as a condition precedent to the hearing of its appeal. The learned Single Judge who heard it dismissed the same on the ground that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal did not call for any interference.2. What is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of subsequent decision of the Tribunal and because the Tribunal has not properly considered the aspect of financial hardship to the appellant, this court should interfere with the said order. If as a result of subsequent decision of the Tribunal any change in the correct legal position has been brought about, then the appellant can move the Tribunal for modification of the impugned order passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ansa Anthony Vs. Management of St.Anne's Girls High School
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-28-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3656; 1995(4)KarLJ369
ORDERMohan Kumar, J1. These Revision Petitions challenge the Order dated 13.1.1993 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in M.A.EAT.No. 16/86. C.R.P.No.482/93 is filed by the aggrieved teacher, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, and C.R.P.No. 1346/93 is filed by the respondent-Management. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the appellant and the Management.2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in one of the schools under the Management, i.e., St.Anne's Girls High School, Ulsoor, on 15.7.1985. Her appointment was approved by the competent authority on 26.7,1985. She applied for maternity leave on 16.1.1986 and, according to her, it was sanctioned on 1.2.1986. While she was still on leave, the Management issued an order on 22.2.1986, terminating her services for the reasons stated therein, to take effect from 1.3.1986. This order has been challenged by the appellant before the...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ranganarasaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3595; 1995(1)KarLJ281
Eswara Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner challenges Section 14 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (L.A. Act of 1984' for short), as ultra vires of the Constitution of India as lacking in Legislative Competence of the State Legislature and prays for quashing of the proceedings of the Karnataka UpaLokayukta dated 31-7-1986, by which the prosecution of the petitioner was directed which is deemed to be sanction granted by the appropriate authorities. 2. The facts in brief are as follows :- While the petitioner was working as Grading Demonstrator in the Office of the Chief Marketing Officer, Department of Marketing, Bangalore, a complaint was lodged by one Sri P. V. Naniah with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka State Vigilance Commission on 13-9-1985 to the effect that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 400/- for the purpose of favouring him in connection with his official work. Pursuant thereto, it is alleged that a trap was laid and the petitioner was apprehend...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Neelakanteshwar Oil Industries Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-27-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR52
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'). The petitioner established a new small-scale industrial unit for manufacture of edible oil and edible oil cake by crushing groundnuts, which went into commercial production on April 29, 1994. 2. By Notification No. FD 239 CSL 90 (I), dated June 19, 1991, the Government of Karnataka, in exercise of its powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 8-A of the Act, exempted with immediate effect the tax payable under the said Act in respect of the goods manufactured and sold by new industrial units described in column (2) of the table given in the said notification, located in the zones specified in column (3) of the table, to the extent indicated in column (4) and during the period specified in column (5) of the said table. Item (1) of the said table exempts tiny/small-scale/medium/large-scale industrial units situated in zone II (specified in annexure I to Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhu Chawla and Others Vs. A.U. Sheriff
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1994
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)42; 1995CriLJ1922; ILR1995KAR39; 1995(4)KarLJ131
ORDER1. The present petition under Section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed for setting aside the order dated 14-12-1992 passed in Criminal Case No. 15178 of 1992 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City ordering registration of the case against the petitioners and two others for offence publishable under Section 500, read with Section 34 I.P.C. and directing process against them for their appearance before the Court, and to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners. 2. The respondent Sri. A. U. Sheriff performed the marriage of his niece Reshma Sheriff with one Syed Manzoor Ahmed, son of Janab Syed Ibrahim Saheb, Proprietor : Master Travels, Bangalore on Sunday the 14th June, 1992 in Chandrasagar Marriage Hall, Jayanagar, Bangalore and that in that connection he had printed and issued marriage invitations in which it was printed as under :- 'With Best Compliments from Hon. Minister for Railways, Alhaj C. K. Jaffer S...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.R.T.C. Staff and Workers Federation Vs. K.S.R.T.C.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1994
Reported in: 1995(4)KarLJ669; (1995)IILLJ1200Kant
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have learned Counsel representing the various petitioners as also the learned Counsel representing the respondents. There is only one narrow point that has been vehemently canvassed by the Counsel representing the petitioners which I shall summarise as follows:Admittedly the petitioners along with several others had applied for the post of Helpers 'B'with the respondent - Corporation. The selection process was completed and these petitioners received a letter from the Corporation to the effect that they had been selected but that they would be offered actual employment at a prospective date. In the meanwhile, since the Corporation required the services of some persons in that capacity on a purely short term or rather ad-hoc basis, the petitioners were offered what was known as a badli post pending their regular appointments. Though a contention is raised that this was a subterfuge and that it must be treated as the petitioners having joined their regular posts, I ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S.R.T.C. Staff and Workers Federation Vs. Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3764
J.F. Saldanha, J1. I have heard learned Counsel representing the various petitioners as also the learned Counsel representing the respondents. There is only one narrow point that has been vehemently canvassed by the Counsel representing the petitioners which I shall summarise as follows.-Admittedly the petitioners along with several others had applied for the post of Helpers 'B' with the respondent - Corporation. The selection process was completed and these petitioners received a letter from the Corporation to the effect that they had been selected but that they would be offered actual employment at a prospective date. In the meanwhile, since the Corporation required the services of some persons in that capacity on a purely short term or rather ad-hoc basis, the petitioners were offered what was known as a badli post pending their regular appointments. Though a contention is raised that this was a subterfuge and that it must be treated as the petitioners having joined their regular po...
Tag this Judgment!Rame Gowda Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-26-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR259
ORDERBharuka, J 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioners for quashing the orders dated 19.12.1990 and 26.2.1991 being Annexures M and N respectively passed by the respondents/Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, whereby the land in question has been resumed under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition on Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (Act 2 of 1979) (for short, 'the Act' only).2. The land in dispute is Survey No. 51/B situate at Bosmanahalli Village in Alur Taluk. This land was given on a temporary lease for coffee plantation to respondent No. 3, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, on 25.2.1966. But the said respondent instead of undertaking coffee plantation by himself, permitted the petitioners to undertake the operation under a Power of Attorney dated 28.4.1974. Subsequently, on 20th April 1976 respondent No. 3 was granted a Saguvali Chit (Certificate of Grant) with a condition that he should not alienate the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Kantappa, S/O Mohanappa Suttar Vs. Devaroa Suttar and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant213
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is preferred by the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the trial court against the order dated 26-8-1987 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bidar, in M.A. No. 37 of 1985 allowing the miscellaneous appeal and settingaside the order dated 8-8-1985 passed by the Munsiff, Basavakalyan, in O.S. No. 79 of 1984 dismissing I.A. No. II filed by the respondent under 0. 39, R. 4 of the C.P.C.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records of the case.3. The petitioner has filed a suit against the respondent for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15-5-1984. He also filed an I.A. under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction and a temporary injunction came to be issued on 2-6-1984 ex parte. After the defendants appeared in the suit and filed a written statement on 18-9-1984 they filed I. A. No. II for vacating the temporary injunction under O. 39, R. 4, C.P.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »