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.
Kempanna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-15-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1079; 1995(4)KarLJ180
Mirdhe, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 1990 is preferred by the appellant who was the accused in the trial Court against the judgment dated 15.10.1990 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar in S.C. No. 1 of 1986 convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentencing to R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 326 IPC.Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1991 is preferred by the State against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kolar, in S.C.,No. 1 of 1986 praying for enhancing the sentence awarded to the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections/324 and 326 IPC.Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1991 is preferred by the State against the very judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Kolar...
Yellappa S/O. Rangappa Vs. Smt. Kamalavva and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2303; ILR1995KAR987; 1995(4)KarLJ730
ORDER1. The petitioner challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 29-12-1990 passed by the J.M.F.C. Banahatti suo motu registering a case against the petitioner for an offence under Section 200, I.P.C. for giving a false declaration knowing it to be false. 2. In Private Complaint No. 10/90 the petitioner herein is accused No. 1 and the respondent is the complainant. The said complaint is in respect of offences under Secs. 361 and 343 read with Section 109 I.P.C. said to have been committed by the accused persons. It was referred to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. It is not known whether the Police have submitted any report on the said reference. However, we are not concerned with those proceedings in this Revision Petition. 3. On 24-12-1990 the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order-sheet in the aforesaid private case wherein he had signed his name as Yellappa Ramappa Heggannavar. On 25-12-1990 he made another application for certi...
Vorion Distilleries Inc. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR435
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of liquor. For the assessment year 1985-86, the petitioner filed a return in which it claimed exemption on packing and forwarding charges amounting to Rs. 2,67,506. The assessing authority however by an order passed on January 30, 1989, refused exemption on the said amount and brought it to tax at the rate applicable to liquor. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the order of refusal challenged the same by way of an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Bangalore City Division No. II. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated February 2, 1990, allowed the exemption claimed by the petitioner and observed thus : 'The claim of exemption by the appellant also supported by the decision of the Karnataka High Court in their decision reported in [1981] 48 STC 169 (State of Karnataka v. Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd.) which was upheld by the honourable Supreme Court in their decision reported i...
Kumbara Mahabaleshwarappa Vs. G. Shaik Sab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR120; 1995(2)KarLJ59
ORDERBharuka, J 1. In this Writ Petition dispute relates to a plot measuring 30' x 30' in Survey No. 292B of Moka Village, classified as 'village house site', which is hereinafter referred to as 'the house site'. The said house site was granted to the petitioner by the Tahsildar on 17/18.1.1980. Respondent No. 4 being aggrieved by the said order of grant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. On 31.3.1981 the Assistant Commissioner set aside the grant made in favour of the Petitioner. Against the said order, petitioner went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner which was numbered as REV/RRT/34/81-82 R 10. On 30.6.1981 the. Deputy Commissioner passed an interim order in the following terms:'The orders passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Beilary in appeal No. V.H.S.44/79-80, dt.31.3.81 are stayed until further orders from this Court.'While the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was pending with the said interim order in force, to the shock and surprise of the Petition...
C. Bhasker Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR183
Krishna Moorthy, J 1. This Appeal is referred to a Division Bench by one of us (Justice Mohan Kumar) as the learned Judge felt that the Decision in DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER vs . GANGADHAR : AIR1993Kant82 requires re-consideration in the light of the Decision of a Division Bench of this Court in PATIL EXHIBITORS (P) LTD. vs . CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE : AIR1986Kant194 .2. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, the Principal, Maharani's Arts College from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property which is a canteen building attached to Maharani's Arts College for Women, otherwise, than under due process of law. According to the plaintiff, he is a tenant in respect of the canteen building attached to the Maharani's Arts College for Women on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- and he has been conducting business to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. He has paid rent up-to-date on the basis of a leas...
Channamallappa M. Vijapur Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-09-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR731; 1995(4)KarLJ44
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This Writ Petition has been listed for direction on I.A.III. In I.A.III the direction has been sought to the effect that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent No. 1 not to renew the licence under Karnataka Cinema Regulation Act and Rules framed thereunder to second respondent-partnership firm which has stood dissolved on the death of the partner and if it has been issued, it is to be revoked. He further sought the direction to be issued to respondent No. 1, the licensing authority to take note of the death of licencee and to take suitable action in the matter of renewal of cinema licence in favour of second respondent in the interest of justice.2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has claimed the relief of declaration of the order of Divisional Commissioner dated 7.2.1991 to be illegal and void. The petitioner has clearly claimed the relief of prohibiting the respondent No. 1, District Magistrate, Dharwad, from entertai...
Dr. Malini Vs. University of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR144; 1995(4)KarLJ535
ORDERSadashiva, J 1. Whether the Vice-Chancellor has authority of law to cancel the examinations on mere suspicion that one of the examiners must have favoured some students for extraneous considerations, without holding any enquiry of whatsoever nature is the only question that arises for consideration in these Petitions.Though larger questions, such as the object of Post-Graduate courses, the purport and intent of examinations, scope and extent of enquiry regarding malpractices and lapses at the examinations and the applicability of principles of Natural Justice would naturally arise for consideration during the consideration of the question in controversy, in the facts and circumstances of these Cases, I do not propose to go into all these questions suffice it to state that, in matters of enforcement of discipline touching the examinations of various faculties, though applicability of Natural Justice is not a rule of thumb or a straight jacket formula, no penalty could be imposed wi...
Golappa Vs. Malakappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR118; 1994(5)KarLJ174
ORDERBharuka, J 1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4.6.1984 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur (Annexure-D) by which he has affirmed the order of the Tahsildar dated 27.9.1983. By these orders the request of the Petitioner for mutation of his name in respect of 8 acres of eastern portion of land in Survey No. 1148 of Basavana Bagewado, Bijapur District, has been rejected. Petitioner filed a worthy for mutating his name as required under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('the Act', for short). His claim was based on a registered Sale Deed dated 3.2.1964 executed by the contesting respondent No. 1 who in fact was the original owner. Respondent Tahsildar by his order dated 27.9.1983 rejected the claim of the petitioner for mutation on the grounds - (i) the application was belated by about 19 years; (ii) from the enquiry it transpired that respondent No. 1 is still in possession of the land in question; and (iii) the sale deed does not appear to b...
Tulajappa Vs. Divisional Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-08-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR720
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioner has sought the relief of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 6.6.1988 contained in Annexure-A to the Writ Petition and passed by the District Magistrate, Shimoga District -Respondent No. 2 to the Writ Petition as well as quashing of the appellate order dated 30.11.1988 passed in Cinema Appeal No. 18/1988, dismissing the petitioner's appeal and affirming the order of the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority, rejecting the No Objection Certificate under Rule 27 of the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1971. The petitioner has further sought the directions to be issued to the authorities to grant No Objection Certificate for construction of permanent cinema on the site measuring 150' x 140' situate adjacent to Chitradurga-Bhadravathi Road, as sought by the petitioner in his application moved before Respondent No. 1.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner moved an application for permission to cons...
AvelIn R. Luis Vs. District Magistrate
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR886; 1994(5)KarLJ418
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the grant or issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice bearing No. ENT 76/94-95 dated 12.10.1994, issued by the respondent - Licensing Authority and annexed as Annexure-B to the Writ Petition. The petitioner has further prayed for a Writ of Mandamus being issued against the respondent - Licencing Authority directing the Licensing Authority to consider the petitioner's application for regrant of licence as per Rule 6 of the Karnataka Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Casette (Regulation) Rules, 1984, hereinafter referred as 'Rules of 1984' and for regrant of the same forthwith without insisting upon for production of 'No Objection Certificate' from the Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore, as per demand made in the impugned notice and for such other direction, Order or Writ as this Court deems fit. The interim relief, which has been claimed and ma...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »