Karnataka Court November 1994 Judgments
N. Deepak and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant137; ILR1994KAR3614; 1995(1)KarLJ167
ORDERHakeem, J.1. These petitions are before us on a reference made underlet ion 9 ofthe Karnataka High Court Act.2. The petitioners in all these cases are students who, having passed the Pre-University Course, had taken Common Entrance Test (C.E.T) with a view to join professional courses, viz., Engineering, Medical and Denial courses. In the result announced by the Special Officer, Common Entrance Test Cell (C.E.T. Cell), the respective ranking of the candidates for Engineering, Medical and Dental courses was published in the newspapers. The candidates were, inter alia, intimated procedure under which a spot selection of the candidates for the aforesaid courses would be made. The petitioners were called for counselling for admission to Engineering course in the first instance and, upon being selected for the first year B.E. course in the free seats category, a provisional admission order was issued to them on the same date having regard to the choice of the discipline and the college...
Tag this Judgment!Omkar Saw Mills Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: [1995]97STC424(Kar)
S. Rajendra babu, J.1. Though this matter is listed for orders, as suggested by the learned counsel on both sides it is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by the following order : 2. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of his powers under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, initiated certain proceedings against an order made by the appellate authority in respect of assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. In response to the notice issued to the appellant it raised three objections : (1) That the initiation of the proceedings is barred by limitation. (2) That it is unable to reply to the notice as it has no books. (3) That the appellate authority has correctly passed the order. The revising authority did not consider the effect of these contentions, but summarily rejected the same stating that they are not tenable as is evident from the show cause notice. 3. The appropriate way of dealing with the matter is to consider the contentions rais...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Gopinath Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR123; 1995(4)KarLJ515
ORDERBharuka, J 1. Petitioner had entered into an agreement with the State Government to execute the work of earth excavation of Left Bank Canal of Harangi Reservoir Project from chainage 79.300 to 79.500 kilometers. The work was to be completed by 14.5.1977. But the petitioner failed to carry out the said term. By a letter dated 14.12.1977 (Annexure R-4) petitioner requested the concerned Assistant Engineer to extend the period for three months by setting out an undertaking that he will complete the work in the last week of March 1978. But he again failed to maintain his promise. Since the Petitioner failed to resume the work, by a letter dated 27.3.1978 (Annexure R-5) the Assistant Executive Engineer directed the petitioner to resume the same before 5th April 1978. Because of the failure on the part of the petitioner to resume and complete the work even within the extended time, ha was served with a notice dated 29.4.1978 calling upon him to show cause as to why his contract need not...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandraiah Vs. Nagappa Naidu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR570
Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant Respondent unrepresented and absent.1(a). This Appeal has been preferred by the original defendant against a judgment of the City Civil Court at Bangalore in O.S. No. 3206/81. The present appellant who was the original defendant is an allottee in respect of the disputed premises which consists of a house property. That the house was allotted to him by the Housing Board in October 1965 is undisputed. The Lease cum Sale Agreement indicated that House No. 540(B), Hosalli, Bangalore was allotted to the appellant under the Low/Middle Income Group Housing Scheme is established. It is also necessary for me to take note of the fact that under Clause (3) of the Agreement, there is a total bar of alienation of the title and interest in the property to third parties save and except to certain specified institutions for purposes of obtaining a loan with the prior approval of the Housing Board. It appears that on 30.5.1980 the defendant entered...
Tag this Judgment!Shylaja Gundu Rao Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-30-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR585
Hari Nath Tilhar, J.1. By this Petition the petitioner has sought the relief of issuance of Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No. CIN.6/81-82 dated 21.6.1986, Annexure-E to the Writ Petition and has further prayed for issuance of such other Writ or direction as the Court deems fit.2. The facts of the case in brief are - that the petitioner moved an application, on 18.8.1981 to the respondent licensing Authority, under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 and the Rules framed thereunder, for the grant of No Objection Certificate to construct and to locate a sound proof permanent cinema theatre on the land bearing Sy.No. 65/1, 85/1 and 85/3 of Kushal nagar Town owned by her i.e., the petitioner. According to the petitioner's case vide order dated 29.9.1932 in Form-D the authorities concerned granted the 'No Objection Certificate' Annexure-A to the Writ Petition. This Certificate was granted under Rule 28 of Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1971 framed und...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Tonesta Electronics and Another Vs. the Assistant Collector of Cen ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3680; 1995(4)KarLJ379
ORDER1. This petition is filed by accused-1 and 2 in C.C. 72/88 before the special court for economic offence for quashing those proceedings initiated on a complaint filed by the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(bb) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. ('the Act' for short). 2. The respondent has filed a complaint in the lower court against M/s. Tonesta Electronics, which is a registered firm, represented by its managing partner, the second accused and A-3 and A-4 are the partners of the first accused firm for above offences. It is alleged that central excise duty is payable for the products manufactured and learned under T.I. 68 in respect of T.V. cabinets, that on inspection of the factory of the first accused revealed that the first accused was manufacturing T.V. cabinets and supplying the same to M/s. Relectronics Pvt. Ltd. without either obtaining a licence as required under Section 6, of the Act, that the accused had removed/cleared T.V....
Tag this Judgment!Tonesta Electronics Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Excise, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)428; 1995LC455(Karnataka); 1995(75)ELT456(Kar)
ORDERS. Venkataraman, J.1. This petition is filed by accused-1 and 2 in C.C. 72/88 before the special court for economic offences for quashing those proceedings initiated on a complaint filed by the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(bb) of the Central Excises and Salt Act ('the Act' for short).2. The respondent has filed a complaint in the lower court against M/s. Tonesta Electronics, which is a registered firm, represented by its managing partner, the second accused and A-3 and A-4 are the partners of the first accused firm for above offences. It is alleged that central excise duty is payable for the products manufactured and cleared under T.I. 68 in respect of T.V. cabinets, that on inspection of the factory of the first accused revealed that the first accused was manufacturing T.V. cabinets and supplying the same to M/s. Relectronics Pvt. Ltd. without obtaining a licence as required under Section 6 of the Act, that the accused had removed/cl...
Tag this Judgment!Christina Vs. Management of K.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR422; 1995(2)KarLJ61
ORDER1. This is a very sad case presented by the widow of a deceased Driver of the KSRTC. Basically, the petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that pursuant to the death of her husband, which took place in March, 1993, that she made an application to the Corporation to consider the case of her son for employment on compassionate grounds and that the application was turned down by the Corporation on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was not an employee of the Corporation on the date of his death. The exact date of the death of the petitioner's husband happens to be March 9, 1993 and, the Corporation was obviously relying on the fact that on January 9, 1993, the Divisional Controller, Hubli, had passed an order removing the petitioner's husband from service of the Corporation. This order was not challenged by him, but, it is material to record that since the petitioner has prayed for a relief by way of compassionate appointment for her son, that she has also...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Sri Uttaradhimath Vs. Sri Sri Raghavendraswamy Math
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-29-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR22; 1995(4)KarLJ519
ORDERMirdhe, J 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who was the plaintiff in the trial Court against the order dated 10.12.1993 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Koppal, in M.A.No. 8 of 1993 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order dated 30.3.1993 passed by the Munsiff, Koppal, in O.S. No. 193 of 1992 allowing I.A.Nos. II and III filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.2. After hearing both sides, the Revision Petition is admitted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri H.B. Datar and the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri S.G. Sundaraswamy submitted that in view of the fact that the Aradhana is to take place on 1st, 2nd and 3rd December, 1994, the Revision Petition itself may be heard. In view of this submission made by the learned Counsel for both sides, I have heard this Petition on merits.3. The petitioner has filed a suit against the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the po...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Vs. Government of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-28-1994
Reported in: 1992CriLJ3969; ILR1995KAR269; 1995(2)KarLJ321
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. There is no dispute that the second respondent has held that there was sufficient cause shown for the petitioner's absence and that the petition to set aside the exparte award was rejected solely on the ground that when once an award is published in the Official Gazette, there is no power for the Industrial Tribunal to entertain an application for setting aside the exparte award. 2. This Court in an unreported judgment in the case of The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. Sindhanoor Veerabhadrappa and Another W.P. No. 756 of 1988 DD 20.1.1988 while making reference to the Grindlay's Bank case : (1981)ILLJ327SC has held as follows :- 'Therefore, if the workman was prevented from sufficient cause to appear before the Labour Court, then it is an award resulting without notice to him, as observed by the Supreme Court. In such cases, if the Court leans in favour of the workman, having regard to the object of the Industrial Disputes Act and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »