Karnataka Court December 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.
Bharath Kumar, A. Vs. Karnatka State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant264; ILR1995KAR331; 1995(4)KarLJ53
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, questioning the correctness of an order made in Writ Petition No. 38181/92 on 6th August. 1993. By the said order, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition questioning the correctness of the conditions imposed for grant of a permit, however modifying the said order to certain extent in regard to the age of vehicle that could be covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 thereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The appellant applied for gram of a stage carriage permit. The R.T.A., Manga-lore, granted permit subject to certain conditions including that the petitioner shall produce the documents of 1985 or later model vehicle within 30 days from the date of receipt of the proceedings. The matter was carried in appeal to the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal contending that the condition imposed in regard to the age of the vehicle was illegal. The appea...
Woodlands Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR337
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. In these two petitions a hotelier is the petitioner. For the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 a sum of Rs. 2,64,850.25 and Rs. 2,40,700 respectively were deducted by the petitioner from the salaries of the employees towards supply of food to them. Whether such amount would constitute consideration for the sale of food is a question posed for our consideration. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is by way of wages that food was supplied customarily and in such cases the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, on February 14, 1986, made it clear that where food is supplied to workmen certain sums could be deducted from their wages depending upon the category in which they come. It is therefore contended on behalf of the petitioner that the sums deducted from the wages for supply of food is part of wages and not consideration for sale of food. But, it is the stand of the department that the said amount is in the nature of consi...
Dasappa Vs. Seetharam
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1683
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This Regular First Appeal arises out of Judgment and decree dated July 3rd, 1989, delivered in Regular Suit 5208/1986, whereby the VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, has decreed the plaintiff's claim, holding the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of the property in dispute, as well as the defendant to be in unauthorised occupation thereof without having perfected title by adverse possession and further granted the decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff-respondent within three months from the date of decree. Further, the Court directed that the enquiry, as regards mesne profits, claimed by plaintiff under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, for short, 'Code', be made. Thus, a preliminary decree has been passed by the Trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's claim.2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed himself to be...
Neeminath Vs. Corporation Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1810; 1994(5)KarLJ355
ORDER 21 RULE 58 - Investigation of Claims. Order 21 Rule 58 CPC says that if any claim is preferred or any objection is made to the attachment of any property attachedin execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable for such attachment, such claim or objection should beinvestigated by the Court....
Sangavva Vs. Jaherabi
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1808; 1995(4)KarLJ733
ORDERVishwanath J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by defendant-3 in O.S.No. 231 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Bijapur.2. The plaintiffs suit was for declaration of title to the suit property and for possession. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was given to her by her husband (defendant-1). The case of defendant-2 was that she purchased the property from defendant-1 and sold it to defendant-3. Defendant-3 set up the defence that he has full title and is exclusively in possession.3. Defendant-3 filed I.A.No. III under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., before the Learned Munsiff and prayed for permission to take up one more stand on a new set of facts viz., he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the plaintiff's title. The learned Munsiff rejected I.A.No. III and refused to allow the amendment.4. Defendant-3 has challenged the order on I.A.No. III passed by the learned Munsiff,5. It is obvious that defendant-3 prayed that he should be perm...
Bharath Kumar Vs. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-16-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC553
Rajendra Babu, J.1. This Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, questioning the correctness of an order made in Writ Petition No. 38181/92 on 6th August, 1993. By the said Order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition questioning the correctness of the conditions imposed for grant of a permit, however modifying the said order to certain extent in regard to the age of a vehicle that could be covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The Appellant applied for grant of a stage carriage permit. The R.T.A., Mangalore, granted permit subject to certain conditions including that the petitioner shall produce the documents of 1985 or later model vehicle within 30 days from the date of receipt of the proceedings. The matter was carried in Appeal to the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal contending that the condition imposed in regard to the age of the vehicle was illegal. The Appeal was...
State of Karnataka Vs. H. Koroji Naik and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: 1995(2)ALT(Cri)477; 1995CriLJ1964; I(1995)DMC374; ILR1995KAR368
Mirdhe, J.1. The Criminal appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 13-9-1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C. No. 31/89 acquitting the respondents-accused of the offences punishable under Ss. 498A, 302 read with S. 34 of IPC. 2. We have heard the learned Additional S.P.P. Sri Jadhav, for appellant and Sri Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondents fully and perused the records of the case. 3. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Jayamma alias Megibai was the wife of accused No. 1, Kiroji Naika, who is the son of accused No. 2 Hala Naika and accused No. 7, Hemli Bai. A3 Raju, A4 Limbya Naika and A5 Murthy Naika are the other sons of A2 Hala Naika. A6 Duggi Bai is the daughter of A2. PW-1 and PW-6 are brothers. PW-2 Hali Bai is their mother. The marriage of Jayamma alias Magibai was performed with A1 Kiroji Naika on 16-6-1982. At the time of marriage, A1 was an unemployed B. Com., graduate. For about 3 years after the marriage A1 Kiroji Na...
Dr. T.K. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR273; 1994(5)KarLJ409
ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J.1. The petitioner joined the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, as a Professor in Microbiology on 14.9.1973. He was posted to the College situate in Dharwad. He retired from services on 30.6.1989. Under the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, Provident Fund Scheme was in force. Thereafter, by virtue of the Statute of 1982 framed by the Bangalore Agricultural University, the employees like the petitioner were given option to opt for the Pension Scheme. The option has to be exercised within three months from 10.6.1982, but the petitioner gave his option only on 31.7.1985 and accordingly, his option was rejected as belated. So, the petitioner was continuing under the Provident Fund Scheme. While so, on 1.10.1986, an Agricultural University was constituted at Dharwad and the services of the petitioner and other members of the Staff working in place coming within the jurisdiction of that University were transferred to the Agricultural University, Dh...
Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR282; 1995(1)KarLJ675
ORDERSadashiva, J 1. The Petitioner has presented this Petition for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider his application for allotment of a free seat in first year B.E. (Mechanical) for the academic year 1994-95.2. The complaint of the petitioner is that he appeared for Common Entrance Test held in the month of May 1994 and at the result declared in July 1994, he secured a ranking 20136. He further states that he has passed CBSE XII Standard at the two different examinations, one at the examination held in the month of March 1994 and another at the examination held in August 1994; the respondents have allotted seats to students possessing same qualifications with a lesser ranking than that of the petitioner and that, application of the petitioner was rejected arbitrarily and therefore, he is entitled for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus.3. The admitted facts in this case are that the students seeking for admission either for first year Engineering or for first year ...
Karibasappa Kuravateppa Maradibankar Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: ILR1997KAR2236
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. This Writ Petition involves an important question of law pertaining to Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment)Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance No. 8 of 1980) (hereinafter 'the first ordinance'). Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 (Ordinance No. 8 of 1981) (hereinafter 'the second ordinance') and Section 6 of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1981 (Act No. 42 of 1981) (hereinafter 'the Amendment Act') read with various other provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter, 'the Principal Act').2. The petitioner is the owner of certain extent of land in Survey Nos. 3/2A and 3B/2A of Rannebennur Town in the district of Dharwad. Pursuant to the applications filed by the petitioner, respondent - Tahasildar under his communications dated 26.3.1981 (Annexure-A and A-1) informed the petitioner that in view of the fact that the petitioner has deposited conversion charges, he has no objection if the lands in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »