Karnataka Court November 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.
N. Chandrasekhar Vs. Papamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-22-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3734; 1995(4)KarLJ688
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. The cause for delay in re filing the Appeal has been stated in paragraph 2 of the Affidavit:'That. I have filed the above appeal on 30.5.1994 personally on the instructions of my counsel. The office returned the papers' on 15.6.1994 with some objections My Counsel wrote to me in the third week of June asking me to visit his office in the first week of July to comply with the office objections. Since my father had expired living a big vaccum in the family, I had to set right the things in my family. I had no money even to pay for the Court fees, etc. I had to admit my children to school. I had to repay the debts incurred for the hospitalisation of my father.'The allegation in paragraph 2 firstly shows that the appellant's father had died during the period he had to refile the Appeal and as he had to set right the things in his family and to meet the expenses of the litigation, as the appellant was in difficulty on acco...
Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kazi Ataulla H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1; 1995(4)KarLJ109
Krishna Moorthy, J 1. This is an Appeal by the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Sedam District, Gulbarga, against the Award of the Land Acquisition Court in L.A.C.No. 73 of 1981. The Appeal came up for admission and the Appeal was admitted by us. When the learned Government Advocate moved for stay of execution of the decree, the respondent who had already entered appearance, opposed the same and with the consent of the parties, we heard the Appeal itself finally.2. This case relates to the acquisition of 13 acres and 6 guntas of land on Sy.No. 913 in the limits of Sedam for the purpose of distribution as house sites by the Town Municipal Council, Sedam. The Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was on 27.9.1973 and the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was on 31.1.1979, Possession was taken even before Section 4(1) Notification was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs. 700/- per acre which was enhanc...
State of Karnataka Vs. M/S Naveena Constructions, Gulbarga and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3638; 1995(1)KarLJ324
G.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. In these two appeals under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act' for short), the common questions that arise for consideration being the same, the appeals were heard together and disposed of by the common judgment. 2. The main question that arises for consideration in these appeals whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides for extension of prescribed period in certain cases, are applicable in a proceeding initiated by the Arbitrator's under sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. 3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : The Arbitrators concerned filed their respective awards in court at the instance of the claimants in terms of Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act reads as hereunder : 'Section 14. Award to be signed and filed : (1) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof ...
indi Vs. Executive Engineer (Elec), Keb
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR674; 1994(5)KarLJ543
ORDERSaldanha, J. 1. Heard Counsel. 2. The petitioner in this case is an ex-employee of the Karnataka Electricity Board. He was originally recruited to service by the Mysore State Electricity Board in the year 1961 and his services were thereafter taken over by the Karnataka Electricity Board. According to the records of the Karnataka Electricity Board which had proceeded on the basis of the entries made in the records of the erstwhile Company, the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 2.12.1938. Sometime in or about the year 1991, the petitioner produced a School Leaving Certificate in support of his contention that his medium of instruction has been 'Kannada'. A scrutiny of that Certificate disclosed that the petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 2.2.1932. The Authorities therefore issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as they proposed to correct the records in question calling upon him to produce an extract of his correct date of birth. According to him, the authori...
T. Venkatesh Vs. Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: [1995(70)FLR920]; ILR1995KAR166; (1996)ILLJ266Kant
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. The two petitioners were Officers of the respondent-1 Company and it is alleged that pursuant to an accident that took place at Gujarat on 22.4.1985 that they were deputed there in connection with a certain inspection with direction that they were to submit a report. Briefly stated, it is alleged that subsequent to this, it was necessary for the respondent-Company to take certain corrective action and that the conduct of the petitioners in the course of these subsequent developments is alleged to have given rise to certain disciplinary proceedings. In sum and substance, what is alleged against the petitioners is that while the question of placing orders for certain spare parts were concerned, that they had done so in a manner that was extremely prejudicial to the interest of the Company. It was therefore concluded by the Company that the petitioner have betrayed a total lack of integrity, that they have been guilty of serious disloyalty against the Company and that ...
C. Muniyappa Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3652; 1994(5)KarLJ169
Bharuka, J1. The petitioner assails the order dated 15.4.1993 passed by the first respondent-Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.101/1989-90 ,(Annexure-L) on the ground that on the facts, the appeal was not maintainable under the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the Act).2. The foundational facts leading to the controversy may be stated in short. The petitioner had purchased land measuring 6 acres 13 guntas in Sy.No.10 of Minasandra Village, under a registered deed dated 30.3.1972 from its previous owner Sri T.V. Ramaswamy lyengar. According to the petitioner he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. On 2.7.1981 the petitioner learnt that the rSy.No.10 had been sub divided into Sy.No.10/1 and Sy.No.10/2 without his knowledge and in respect of Sy.No.10/1 measuring 30 guntas, the name of third respondent has been entered. So he filed an application as per Annexure-G before the Tahsildar for making necessary correction and restore his ...
Krishna Chandru Pujar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3742; 1995(4)KarLJ682
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J1. This Writ Petition is filed against the order passed by the Third Respondent in Case No,RB/ULC/AP/4-83-84 dated 20.5.1986 confirming the order passed by the Second Respondent dated 15.03.1983.2. According to the petitioner, his family consists of three major sons and three major daughters and petitioner's family including minor children is 25 members, The properties of the petitioner's family is agricultural lands and the entire family's source of livelihood is from agricultural lands. Petitioner filed a declaration as required under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 declaring his holding that the holdings of the petitioners are all agricultural lands bearing S.Nos.56/2 and 71/1 situated at Madhavapura. The Second Respondent, according to the petitioner, without holding a proper enquiry required under the Act has held 24981.43 Sq.Meters in excess of the ceiling limit of Sy.Nos. 56/2 and 71/1. Petitioner submits that both the Sy.Nos. are agricult...
Dr. M.M. Nirmala Vs. New Mangalore Port Trust
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3770; 1995(4)KarLJ660
ORDERSaldanha, J1. A point of procedure has been raised by the respondents learned Counsel which concerns the conduct of Writ Petitions in this High Court. Under the scheme prevalent as of now, which is evolved as a matter of practice and which is in keeping with the Rules framed by the High Court for the conduct of Writ Petitions, the Court often orders notice to the respondents at the initial stage of hearing of the Petition. This is obviously with the intention of hearing the other side even on the question of issue of Rule Nisi but more importantly, for purposes of ascertaining whether the matter can be disposed of at that stage itself without going into the procedure of formally admitting the Petition and setting it down for hearing. This is basically governed by the objective of expediency because the High Court has taken serious notice of the mounting arrears and of the fact that a relief granted at a belated stage may hardly provide succour to the aggrieved litigant Moreover, t...
Anil Kumar Bhandari Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR193; 1995(1)KarLJ632
ORDERSadashiva, J 1. This Petition was listed for orders, With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, the same was heard on merits and disposed of by this Order.2. The petitioners have presented this Petition for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the Directives dated 5.8.1994 issued by the first respondent in No. F.5(6)/94-P1ant (B) produced at Annexure-B and for a further Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to conduct all its future auctions of the coffee without reference to the Directives issued by respondent-1 at Annexure-B.3. That, in view of the sharp rise in auction prices of coffee and the resultant upward trend in retail prices, the first respondent in pursuance of Section 20 of the Coffee Act, 1942 (for short 'the Act'), directed the second respondent to implement the Directives mentioned in Annexure-B to arrest steep rise in retail prices of coffee in domestic market. The Directives issued vide Annexure-B reads as follows :'1) That the Coffe...
Saraswathi Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3739; 1994(5)KarLJ230
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J1. The petitioner's husband one late K. Sadashiva Havaldar, secured an excise contract for the taluks of Sagar and Sorab during the excise year 1981 -82 for vending of arrack in retail on a monthly rental of Rs. 2,60,100/- and for Rs. 85,000/- respectively. Arrears to the tune of Rs. 4,35,100/- being the rental amount was found due from the deceased Sadashiva. As against the said amount, the interest was calculated at 6 1/4% as that was the prevailing rate of interest and a sum of Rs. 1,16,009.50 was added up to the said amount.2. The late Sadashiva sought remission of the kist. But it was -rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Shimoga District, Shimoga. He however, recommended for payment of instalments. By order dated 10.12.1984 he granted 36 instalments with interest.3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband late Sadashiva paid the entire amount with interest and fully discharged his liabilities. Unfortunately for the petitioner, Rule 15 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »