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.
H.S. Vasantasenaiah Vs. Divisional Controller, Ksrtc
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2628; 1994(4)KarLJ334; (1995)IILLJ835Kant
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This Writ Appeal arises out of Judgment and Order dated 29-7-1991 delivered by the learned single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj Patil) in W.P.No. 16141/1991 dismissing the petitioner's claim challenging the award of the Labour Court as regards back wages. The learned single Judge mentioned in the Order that he did not find any good ground to entertain that part of the claim.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner-Appellant had been terminated by an Order dated 30-4-1980 by respondent-1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 7351/1980 challenging that Order of termination and that Writ Petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 21-3-1986. According to allegations in para-4 of the Writ Petition that during the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 7351/1980, when the Petition came up for hearing, there was some offer to settle the matter amicably and on certain assurances from the opposite side. So, the petitioner thought it fit to withdr...
Krishnegowda Vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2008
Hakeem, J.1. This Appeal by the Writ Petitioner is directed against the order dismissing his Petition on the ground of maintainability, since, according to him, an alternative 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 31-7-1972. 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 adhoc 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 conduc...
Erappa Vs. Swamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-14-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2124
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. Heard2. The petitioners are in Judicial custody from 16.7.93. They were arrested in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. As the charge sheet was not filed within 60 days from the date of their remand to judicial custody the petitioners sought for bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate relying on Section 104-D of the Karnataka Forest Act has declined to release them on bail on the ground that that provision overrides Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.3. It is no doubt true that Section 104-D of the Forest Act stipulates that no person accused of the forest offence punishable under Sections 86, 87 or 104-A or in respect of ivory shall be released on bail, if the prosecution opposes the application and if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. It is also true that this is a special provision and this provision is applicable notwithst...
Gokak Mills, Gokak Falls and anr. Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's Compe ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1994
Reported in: 1994ACJ1099; ILR1994KAR1982; 1994(3)KarLJ164
S.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the order of the learned single judge disposing of a batch of writ petitions which challenged 3rd proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act'). 'That no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and,..... is not less than three hundred rupees : Provided further that.. to by parties :' The impugned third proviso reads thus : 'Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against.' 2. It is submitted that the requirement of depositing the amount payable under the order appealed against even at the stage of filing appeal itself results practically in whittling-down the right of appeal and is therefore arbitrary. It is not possibl...
Lipton India Limited and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-13-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1848
S.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. These five writ appeals are taken out by the common appellants/original writ petitioners challenging the order passed on December 21, 1993, by learned single Judge K. Shivashankar Bhat, rejecting the writ petitions of the appellants on the ground that there is availability of effective alternative remedy. The learned Judge has, however, observed that clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in individual case is not binding on the assessing authority nor the appellate authority. They are required to decide the question according to law. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, in these common appeals, it is necessary to note a few introductory facts : 3. Introductory facts : The first appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling, inter alia, blended packet teas in Karnataka. The first appellant is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax ...
Canara Bank, Ankali Vs. M/S. Krishna Tubewells, Ankali and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant107; 1994(2)KarLJ664
ORDER1. Orders on office objection regarding the payment of Court-fee payable on the appeal memo:-In this appeal, the office objection is to the effect that Court-fee on the appeal memo is required to be paid according to the rates prescribed by Schedule-I of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. 1958, as it stood before the amendment, since according to the office the plaint in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was presented at a time when Schedule-1 was unamended. It is necessary to point out here that Schedule-1 is amended by Act No. 2 of 1993 (Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 1-992) which was published in the Karnataka Gazette extraordinary on the 29th day of January, 1993. There is no dispute that the plaint was presented on 25-7-1992. There is also no dispute that the appeal in this case is filed on 7-1-1994, that is to say, admittedly after the coming into force of Act No. 2/1993. There is also no dispute that the valuation in the ...
Canara Bank Vs. Krishna Tubewells
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1822
ORDERN.D.V. Bhat, J. 1. In this Appeal, the office objection is to the effect that Court fee on the Appeal Memo is required to be paid according to the rates prescribed by Schedule-1 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, as it stood before the amendment, since according to the office the plaint in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was presented at a time ' when Schedule-l was un-amended. It is necessary to point out here that Schedule-l is amended by Act No. 2 of 1993 [Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation (Amendment) Act, 1992] which was published in the Karnataka Gazette Extraordinary on the 29th day of January 1993. There is no dispute that the plaint was presented on 25.7.1992. There is also no dispute that the Appeal in this case is filed on 7.1.1994, that is to say, admittedly after the coming into force of Act No. 2/1993. There is also no dispute that the valuation in the instant suit is Rs. 2,59,394-93.2. The office has raised objection saying ...
Govindaraja Naicker Vs. Sapthagiri Complex
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR1832
ORDERVasanthakumar, J. 1. This Revision Petition is directed against an order passed on I.A. filed under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 in H.R.C. proceedings No. 3084/86 filed by M/s. Sapthagiri Complex an unregistered Partnership Firm along with all the partners constituting the Firm.2. The undisputed facts are that an eviction proceeding was initiated under clauses (a), (h) and (j) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule tenanted premises. The 1st-petitioner has been described as M/s. Sapthagiri Complex a partnership firm having its place of business at No. 144/1 APMC Yard, Bangalore-560022 represented by one of the Partners Smt. L.A. Pushpamala and the 2nd, 3rd, 4th petitioners have described themselves as Partners of the first-petitioner firm and 5th petitioner has described himself as partner succeeding to the partnership subsequ...
R. Ramachandra Bhatta Vs. Sri Srimath Srirangam Srimath Andavar Ashram ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant24; ILR1994KAR1632; 1995(1)KarLJ616
ORDER1. The Revision-Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 10-9-1992 passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, in H.R.C., No. 1469 of 1989, directing the petitioner, to vacate the suit premises within three months from the date of the said order, has approached this Court in this revision petition challenging its legality and correctness, on more than one ground.2. I have heard learned counsel on both sides.3. Before proceeding to consider the merits of the case, it is necessary to consider the application (I.A, No. 1) for condonation of delay of six days in filing this revision petition 4. This application has been'opposed by the respondent by filing statement of objections.5. Sri U.L.' Narayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner, brought to my notice the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in support of the application. It is stated therein that against the order staying further proceedings in H.R.C. No. 1469 of 1989, the responde...
Javeed Ahmed Khan and Etc. Vs. Syed Ali
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-07-1994
Reported in: AIR1994Kant331; ILR1994KAR1619; 1995(1)KarLJ594
ORDER1. The petitioners in both the revision petitions being aggrieved by the orders dated 24-2-1988 passed by the VIIIth Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore City, in separate orders in H.R.C. Nos. 1675 and 1674/83 rejecting the petitions filed under Section 21(l)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (the Act for short), have approached this court in these petitions challenging the legality and correct of the said orders on more than one ground.2. The facts and circumstances and the question of law involved in both the petitions being one and the same, 1 dispose of both the petitions by the following common order. 3. I have heard learned counsel on both sides.4. A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of these petitions are as follows :--The respondent Syed Ali, in both the petitions, has been admittedly the tenant of the premises bearing No. 1/1 situated in 2nd Cross, Armugam Mudaliar Lane, Kalasipalyam, Bangalore, on a monthly rent of Rs.110/- under the ori...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »