Karnataka Court June 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.
Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gopal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1817; 1994(2)KarLJ611
ORDERShivaprakash, J. 1. This Appeal is presented by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, National Highways, Dharwar, against the judgment and award dated 28.11.1991 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M. (Reference Court for short) Dharwar in L.A.C. No. 302 of 1988.2. In view of the amendment to Section 5 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (the Act for short) enjoining that all first appeals presented to this Court, save as otherwise provided in the Act, shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges or by a Single Judge depending upon the value of subject matter, a preliminary question is raised whether the value of subject matter in a suit or other proceedings, or the value of subject matter in an appeal ought to be considered for the purpose of ascertaining the forum for hearing the Appeal.3. Before the amendment all first appeals irrespective of the value of subject matter were required, save as otherwise provided in the Act, to be heard by a Bench co...
Shekar Bandu Prabhath Vs. Prescribed Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1985; 1994(3)KarLJ1
Majmudar, C.J. 1. These two Appeals arise out of common Judgment by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the present appellant and has granted relief to the second respondent, whose Writ Petition is also disposed off in that order.2. The grievance of the appellant in these two Appeals centres round the election of Adhyaksha of Ekamba Gram Panchayat, after that Grama Panchayat was reconstituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, in the first meeting when the Panchayat was convened by the Prescribed Authority for the purpose of election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha that was done as per provisions of Section 44 and 45 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short the Act). Procedure for election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha on the establishment of Grama Panchayat is found at Section 45 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Act provides that on the establishment of Grama Panchayat for the first time under this ...
Geeta B. Rao Vs. Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: II(1995)ACC407
Mohan 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, 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, allowed the appeal, permitting the variation by increasing...
Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Additional Deputy ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1994
Reported in: [1998]109STC292(Kar)
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner is seeking for certain interim relief in a matter pending before the Appellate Tribunal contrary to the provisions of section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. This Court has already upheld the validity of the said provision. When that is the policy of law, question of granting stay does not arise. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon a decision of this Court in W.A. No. 3169 of 1963. This Court has made an order on the facts and in the circumstances of that case and it does not lay down any principle of law, which could be made applicable to all cases. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot place reliance on that decision. Petition is therefore rejected. 2. Petition dismissed....
Devikarani Roerich Vs. K.T. Plantations Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-22-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1788; 1993(4)KarLJ742
Venkataraman, J. 1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition wherein they had sought for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the entire proceedings in R.A.No.3/92-93 on the file of the District Registrar Sri G.R. Swamy, Urban District, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, including his order dated 25.5.93 (Annexure-Y) rejecting the appellants application for stay of those proceedings till the final disposal of the suit in O.S.122/92 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, and the order dated 22.7.93 directing the examination of the witnesses on 28.7.93 and for a Writ of Prohibition restraining the second respondent District Registrar from proceeding further with the above appeal pending before him.2. Some of the facts giving rise to the Writ Petition are as hereunder. The first respondent who claims to have purchased certain properties from the first appellant under a Sale Deed dated 16.2.92 allegedly executed b...
Dr. T. Manohar Vs. Selection Committee of Post-graduate Degree and Dip ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2014; 1994(3)KarLJ104
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. The matter was heard at the Preliminary Hearing stage and at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, the Writ Petition is finally disposed of.2. The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to select him for the Course of M.S. (General Surgery) and admit him to the said course in any of the Government Medical Colleges in the State of Karnataka.3. The petitioner completed his M.B.B.S. course in the year 1991 and thereafter appeared at the Entrance Test for admission to the Post Graduate Course in Government Medical Colleges. In the merit list published and also notified in the College list, the ranking obtained by the petitioner is 67. The petitioner's first preference was M.S. (General Surgery) and the second preference was Diploma in Medicine. The petitioner belongs to the general category and he was given a seat in D.M.R.D, which is a Diploma Course. As the last date for admission was 31-3-1994, the petitio...
M.G. Malhotra Vs. Secretary, State Transport Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-17-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2058; 1994(3)KarLJ135
ORDERMohan Kumar, J. 1. Issue Rule.The petitioners herein impugn Annexures C to R, the orders issued by the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Annexure-A, is the show cause notice, issued by the first respondent alleging that the petitioner used his motor vehicle No.KA-04/578 covered by permit No. 30/90 valid upto 4.9.1995 in a manner not in accordance with law and has thus rendered himself liable to be proceeded under Section 86 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act. The notice sent called upon the petitioner to show cause within 7 days as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner. In the show cause notice it catalogued 16 cases which according to the respondents necessitated the notice and action.2. The petitioner submitted Annexure-B explanation pointing out that the show cause notice is vague and does not contain the details of the alleged violations.3. It may be noted that Section 86 contemplates that the Transpo...
Brindavan Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Comme ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-16-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2196; 1995(39)KarLJ18
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. These matters which involve a common question of law were listed for preliminary hearing and were finally heard by consent and are disposed of by this order. The common question that arises for consideration in these cases is whether the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan and State of Karnataka v. New Swastik Flour Mills [1993] 91 STC 408, is only prospective in its application and does not apply to transactions which had taken place prior to the date of the said decision, namely, September 1, 1993. 2. The necessary facts are : Under section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short), the total turnover of every dealer is liable to turnover tax. The proviso to the said section however excludes the turnover relating to several transactions listed therein from turnover tax. Item (ii) under the proviso excludes the turnover relating to sale or purchase of goods specified in the Fourth Sc...
B.T. Krishnegowda Vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1994
Reported in: 1994(3)KarLJ548; (1996)ILLJ193Kant
S.A. Hakeem1. This appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dismissing his petition on the ground of maintainability, since, according to him, an alternate remedy to raise a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short) is available for seeking adjudication thereunder.2. Brief facts leading to the dispute are as follows:-The appellant was employed in the 1st respondent-Bank to which nomination of certain Directors is made by the State Government to the Board of Directors. The appellant was appointed as a local candidate to the post of a clerk on July 31, 1972. It is conceded that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were appointed earlier to the appellant as local candidates. The appointments so made are purely on an ad hoc basis since the 1st respondent-Bank could not make regular appointments at that time. In the year 1974, the 1st respondent Bank having decided to fill up the vacancies by regular recruitment, an interview was c...
C.N. Byrappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1906; 1994(4)KarLJ485
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. This is a Petition for Review of an Order passed by an earlier Division Bench consisting of MOHAN C.J. and SHIVARAJ PAUL, J. on 27th September 1991, dismissing the Writ Appeal No. 2473 of 1991 filed by the present petitioners, who are the heirs of the original Writ-petitioner viz., C.N. Byrappa.2. A few facts which are leading to the present Review proceedings deserve to be noted at the out-set. The original Writ-petitioner, who filed Writ Petition No. 5206 of 1987 under Article 226 of the Constitution, had called in question the correctness and legality of the orders of the Assistant Commissioner (3rd respondent herein) at Annexure-A to the petition as well as the Deputy Commissioner (2nd respondent herein) at Annexure-B to the petition, respectively. The dispute centered round 3A-09G out of 09A-28G of land in Sy.No.90 of Chandalapura village, Chickaballapur Taluk, Kolar District. These lands were granted in favour of Kempanna father of Chowdappa, 4th respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »