Karnataka Court June 1994 Judgments
K.J. Ningegowda Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-30-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2641; 1994(3)KarLJ53
ORDERHarinath Tilhari, J.1. By this Petition the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order of suspension bearing No./Commissioner/CV 191/94-95 dated 3.5.1994 Annexure-B to the Writ Petition. The petitioner has further sought the issuance of the Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been continued in service unaffected by the impugned order of suspension and to pay him the salary and allowances and all consequential benefits flowing therefrom; and the petitioner has also claimed a relief to the effect that the Court may pass such other orders as the Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.2. The facts of the case in a nut shell are: as per the allegations made in the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto that the petitioner was working as a I Division Assistant in the Bangalore Development Authority since his appointment. According to the petitioner's case, during the year 1990 the then First Division Assistant a...
Tag this Judgment!Devilog Systems India Vs. Collector of Customs, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1994
Reported in: 1995(76)ELT520(Kar)
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. In this reference at the instance of the Assessee the following question has been referred to us by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench at Madras for our opinion :'Whether the first notice was within the jurisdiction of those Officers and consequently whether the Assistant Collector's notice was barred by time ?' A few relevant facts leading to this reference may be noted at the outset. The Assessee M/s. Devilog Systems India, functioning at Bangalore imported raw materials and components/parts for 45 paper copier machinery vide Bill of Entry No. 30/83, dated 17-8-1983 and 47/83 under the Projects Imports vide Customs Tariff Heading 84.66 and thus availed of concessional rate of duty. The Assessee paid 40% of Customs duty and 20% of Auxiliary duty with the exemption of additional duty vide Notification No. 268/Cus., dated 2-8-1976. It is not in dispute between the parties that aforesaid goods were imported by the Asse...
Tag this Judgment!A. Devadass Vs. Managing Director, Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2489; 1994(3)KarLJ521; (1995)IILLJ11Kant
ORDERRaveendran, J.1. This matter listed for orders is finally heard by consent. 2. The Petitioner entered the employment of the respondent Corporation (KSRTC) on 19-3-1951 giving his age as 18 years. Apparently he did not give his date of birth. In the absence of date of birth, on the basis that he was 18 years as on 19-3-1951 he would have completed 58 years and attained the age of superannuation on 19-3-1991. It was however observed that when he applied for the post of Tinker II Grade in response to an advertisement dated 23-2-1957, he had given his date of birth as 4-1-1936. Hence by notice dated 15-2-1991 he was called upon to produce proof of his date of birth. In response to it, the petitioner produced a transfer certificate said to have been issued by the School where he studied, showing his date of birth as 28-11-1938. 3. The second respondents considered the matter, and passed the impugned order dated 16/17-8-1993 ordering that the petitioner was relieved from his duties with...
Tag this Judgment!Killick Industries Ltd. Vs. Thimmaiah Ramachandran
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-29-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1957; 1994(3)KarLJ87
ORDERVasanthakumar, J.1. Even though the matter is listed for admission by consent of Counsel heard the matter on merits.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing I.A.II filed by the tenant under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil procedure in H.R.C. proceedings initiated by landlord under Clauses (h) and (p) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')3. Few facts for appreciation of the contentions advanced are that M/s. Killick Industries Ltd., duly registered Company under the Indian Companies Act was inducted as a tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises on a monthly rental of Rs. 650/- by one Thimmaiah Ramachandran, terms and conditions of lease being embodied under a registered document. The period of lease was for fifteen years commencing from 1-6-1968, coupled with a renewable clause. The relevant ...
Tag this Judgment!Basavaraj Fakirappa Manvi Vs. Managing Director, Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-28-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2020; 1994(3)KarLJ60
ORDERH.N. Tilhari, J.1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought the relief in the nature of Writ of Mandamus being issued in his favour directing the respondents to appoint, the petitioner on compassionate ground for the appropriate post in K.S.R.T.C., and for issuance of such other Writ, Order or Direction in the ends of Justice demand.2. In this case appearance has been put on behalf of the respondents by Sri S.V. Jagannath, an Advocate of this Court. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case. The factual position appears to be admitted, which appears from the Writ Petition, According to the petitioner's case the father of the petitioner namely Sri Fakirappa Manvi was working as a Traffic Controller in K.S.R.T.C., Sirsi Division, Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District. According to the petitioner's case the above mentioned petitioner's father while in service had died on December 6, 1990, leaving behind him, his widow and 4 sons. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Udasi Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-27-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant1; ILR1994KAR1971; 1994(3)KarLJ5
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. These three writ petitions have been filed principally for the relief of directing the respondent No. 1 not to make nominations of official and non-official members to the Managing Committee of respondent No. 2 - - 'Karnataka Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane' in excess of 1/3 of total number of members under Sections 29 and 53A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and Bye-laws No. 24(l)(c) of the Karnataka Sahakan Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita, Haveri, Dharwad District, in excess of six members. The other reliefs sought for in the writ petitions are consequential. 2. The 2nd respondent is a co-operative society registered under the Act in the year 1973 and had started production of sugar in the year 1983. The State Government, in exercise of its powers under the provisions of the Act, was making nominations from 1973 till 1991. The petitioners contend that respondents have an obligation to hold elections to the committe...
Tag this Judgment!Mallikarjun M. Kalasray Vs. the Commissioner, Belgaum Development Auth ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant44; ILR1994KAR2223; 1994(3)KarLJ93
ORDER1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ, order and direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19-11-1991 passed by the respondent. That order has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the writ petition and the petitioner has further claimed the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to collect the initial deposit of 25%) of the site value from the petitioner and to handover the possession of the site bearing No. 553 under Scheme No. 13 as well as to issue any other writ or order as this Court deems fit.2. The facts of the case in brief arc that the petitioner had applied for allotment of site measuring 60 x 40 ft. under Scheme No. 13 and paid registration fee of Rs. 500/- on 30-4-1988 vide receipt No. 16047, According to the petitioner's case he had paid initial deposit of Rs. 6,250/- vide receipt No. 2690 on 8-8-1990 and subsequently petitioner again on 16-10-1992 registered with the respondent for allotm...
Tag this Judgment!G.R. Venkateshwara Reddy Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporatio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2736; 1995(1)KarLJ298; (1995)ILLJ1011Kant
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. This matter which is listed for orders is heard finally by consent and disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioner is an employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) the first respondent, working as Divisional Traffic Officer in Mysore Division. An articles of charge dated 17-5-1991 (Annexure-A) was issued to him charging him with certain misconducts. The petitioner duly replied the said charges. Thereafter, an 27-11-1991 an enquiry as ordered against the petitioner and the third respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was commenced on 1-9-1992. At the hearing on 29-1-1993, it is stated that several witnesses were examined. After examination of six witnesses the petitioner made an application requesting for permission to engage a legal practitioner for his defence, relying on Regulation 23(8) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Sheshappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(2)ALT(Cri)541; 1994CriLJ3372; ILR1994KAR2089; 1994(3)KarLJ187
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, for the offences under sections 302, 506 and 324 I.P.C. He is sentenced to be hanged by the neck till he is dead for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under section 506 I.P.C. He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for having committed the offence under section 324 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge also ordered the sentences to run concurrently. 2. This appeal is heard along with the Criminal Reference No. 1/1994 for confirmation of the death sentence imposed on the appellant-accused. 3. Deceased Somayya and his wife deceased Poovamma had 7 sons and one ...
Tag this Judgment!Geetha B. Rao Vs. the Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2063; 1994(2)KarLJ703
ORDERMohan Kumar, J.1. When these matters came up for hearing before this Court, it was agreed that both the Writ Petitions can be disposed off finally.2. The facts may be stated with reference to W.P No. 29902/92. The petitioner herein is a holder of a South Zone permit for the Tourist Taxi vehicle No. KA-06/666 covered by C/C/Stage carriage permit No. TVP.71/80. This vehicle has a seating capacity of six, i.e., 5+1. When the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it recognised granting permit for vehicle with capacity of 13, i.e., 12 + 1, which categories of vehicles were described as Maxi Cab [vide definition 2(22)]. The petitioner thereupon applied for variation of the condition by replacing the existing taxi with maxi cab, This request was rejected by order No. STA.1 REPL.12/89-90 dated 23-5-1992 by the Karnataka State Transport Authority. Aggrieved, the petitioner, submitted an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which by order Annexure-A, allowe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »