Karnataka Court October 1994 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.
Kantappa Vs. Krishnabai
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-25-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3676; 1995(1)KarLJ521
Held: (i) In view of the Judgment of the Division Bench deliveredby this Court in 1981 (2) KLJ 388, the law laid down in theRuling reported in AIR 1986 Karnataka 99, cannot be saidto be a good law.(ii) The plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as well as temporary injunction if he is able to satisfy the condition required for issue of injunction in his favour.OREDRMirdhe, J1. 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, Bihar, in M.A.No.37 of 1985 allowing the Miscellaneous Appeal and setting aside 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 Order 39 Rule 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 re...
Mysore Paper Mills Officers Association Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-24-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3759; 1995(4)KarLJ665; (1995)IILLJ228Kant
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. This Group of Petitions has been presented by the Mysore Paper Mills Officers' Association and two of its office bearers. Briefly stated the Management has issued a show cause notice to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners calling upon them to indicate as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them principally on the ground that they have infringed Rules 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Service Regulations. The short facts are that the petitioners 2 and 3 in the capacity as office bearers of the Association are alleged to have issued certain press releases and made certain statement which according toe the Management infringes upon the Regulations in question. There is also a subsidiary head of charge namely charge-4 whereby it is contended that the petitioners have made unauthorised disclosures of information and documents that came into their possession in the course of their duties and it is observed here that the petitioners have approached this Court at a very p...
Selvaraj Vs. K.M. Nandagopal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR918]; ILR1995KAR163; (1996)ILLJ323Kant
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. The petitioner in this case at the relevant times was a conductor with the respondent-Corporation. It is alleged that on 31.8.1971 he committed certain acts of misconduct in relation to non-issue of tickets to certain passengers. In respect of theses charges, a show cause notice was issued to him on the same date. The record as far as these charges are concerned is minimal for the simple reason that it is only the evidence of the passengers or the checking staff that was required to be considered. The Corporation has contended in its reply that several changes were in the offing and that these included a change of regulations etc., as a result of which, the disciplinary proceeding was not concluded. Thereafter a second show cause notice was issued on 5.9.1979 to which the petitioner submitted a reply on 15.10.1979 and on 18.11.1981. An order was passed against him imposing a punishment of reduction of two increments. The petitioner filed an appeal which was unsucces...
Jayanthi R. Rai Vs. Paul D'silva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3519; 1995(1)KarLJ102
Mohan Kumar, J1. These Appeals are preferred by defendants in a suit for specific performance. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are the appellants in M.F.A.No.462/94, whereas defendants Nos. 6, 11, 12 and 13 are the appellants in M.FANo.1174/94. They are aggrieved by the order of the Court below appointing the plaintiffs as the Receiver of the plaint schedule property. The brief allegations in the plaint relevant for the purpose of the Appeals are as follows:2. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants executed on 21-1-1981 an Agreement to Sell the plaint schedule property which is described as a coffee estate. The period stipulated for completion of the contract under the Agreement is 1 1/2 years from the date of the Agreement with an option to extend it by six months. According to the plaintiffs, before the completion of the contract several other formalities had to be completed so as to make the title of the vendors clear, that the vendees were to complete the Departmental procedure...
Muniyallappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-21-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR255; 1994(5)KarLJ391
ORDERBharuka, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the sole petitioner questioning the validity of the order dated 25-11-1992 passed by the respondent, Tahsildar (Annexure-A) by which he has fixed Rs. 12,000/- per acre as the value for the land granted in favour of the petitioner in terms of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short the 'Act').2. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the application filed by him under Section 94-A of the Act, the Land Grant Committee by its order dated 16.11.1992 directed for grant of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No. 1 of Halasahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Consequent thereupon, the impugned order Annexure 'A' has been passed demanding Rs. 12,000/- per acre by the Tashildar against the said grant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that though under Rule 108-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rul...
Manjunatha Gowda Vs. Director General of Central Reserve Police Force ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR659]; 1995(1)KarLJ341; (1995)IILLJ985Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner, a member of the Central Reserve Police was served with orders asking him to join his unit at Srinagar. The petitioner did not join the unit and remained absent. The authorities attempted to serve several notices on him and ultimately he was taken into custody and produced before the authorities in Srinagar, Since his misconduct also constitute a criminal offence, he was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The judgment of that court is on record and the petitioner was awarded 29 days imprisonment for the offence with which he was charged. It is necessary for me to record the fact that the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges of unauthorised absence and further more, in his statement recorded before the court he has admitted that the documents produced by him in support of his so called illness are fabricated documents which were prepared at a later stage. The manner in which the petitioner had behaved was an issue of some serious...
Manjunatha Gowda Vs. Director General of Central Reserve Police Force
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3756
ORDERSaldanha, J1. The petitioner, a member of the Central Reserve Police was served with orders asking him to join his unit at Srinagar. The petitioner did not join the unit and remained absent. The authorities attempted to serve several notices on him and ultimately he was taken into custody and produced before the authorities in Srinagar. Since his misconduct also constitutes a criminal offence, he was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The judgment of that Court is on record and the petitioner was awarded 29 days imprisonment for the offence with which he was charged. It is necessary for me to record the fact that the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges of unauthorised absence and further more, in his statement recorded before the Court he has admitted that the documents produced by him in support of his so called illness are fabricated documents which were prepared at a later stage. The manner in which the petitioner had behaved was an issue of some seriousness ...
B. Harischandra Vs. Academy of General Education
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-20-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR10; 1995(4)KarLJ118
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Uttara Kannada, Karwar dated 17.9.1980, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner with costs.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner fully and perused the records of the case.3. This C.R.P, was filed as Writ Petition in the first instance. Thereafter, by the order dated 16.6.1987 the Writ Petition came to be converted to C.R.P. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are represented by their Counsel, Respondents 3 & 4, are represented by the Government Advocate.4. It is not in dispute in this case that the Management of the respondent No. 1 is taken over by the respondent No. 3 and it is respondent No, 3 who is contesting this Petition. Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 remained absent The Government Advocate representing respondents 3 and 4 also remained absent. This Court adjourned the case more than once to enable the Government Advocate to submit ...
Sha Vindichand Hastimal and Co. Vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-19-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3517; 1995(1)KarLJ191
ORDERMirdhe, J1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners who are the defendants in the trial Court against the order dated 5-9-1994 passed by the Small Causes Judge and Additional Civil Judge, Mysore in O.S.No. 27 of 1993 allowing I.A.II filed by the respondent under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the records of the case.3. The respondent - Bank has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,72,241/-. When the suit was posted for evidence, the respondent remained absent and therefore the suit came to be dismissed for default. On that very day, a representative of the respondent-Bank appeared before the Court and filed an application under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit. The trial Court has allowed that application. The only grievance of the petitioners is that there is a specific prov...
Navodaya Education Trust, Raichur Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-18-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant149; ILR1994KAR3171; 1995(1)KarLJ320
ORDERNanavati, C.J.1. Though this appeal is listed today for preliminary hearing, with consent of learned advocates it is taken up for final hearing.2. The appellant Navodaya Education Trust is running many educational institutions in the District of Raichur. In one of its colleges it is conducting 'B' Pharma, 'D' Pharma and Diploma in Nursing courses. It wanted to start B.Sc., Nursing Course front the academic year 1993-94. Therefore, it made an application for affiliation of that college in respect to that course to the 2nd respondent-Gulbarga University under Sec. 53 of the Karnataka Universities Act. The University forwarded the application and the relevant documents along with its recommendations to grant affiliation from the academic year 1993-94, to the Government on 1-4-93. The State Government after making an enquiry recommended on 17-9-93 to grant affiliation. The appellant brought to the notice of the University the said recommendation soon (hereafter. It also admitted stude...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »