Karnataka Court August 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.
Dasappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2863; 1994(4)KarLJ617
ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J1. The two petitioners in these two Writ Petitions and Respondents 3 to 18 were elected as Members of 'Nelavagilu Grama Panchayath' held on 29-12-1993. By Annexure 'A' notice dated 2-3-1994 the 2nd respondent the Prescribed Officer (Returning Officer) under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, fixed the election of the President and Vice-president of the Panchayath at 3.00 p.m. on 9-3-1994, By Annexure-'B' order and Annexure-'C' Notification the meeting was postponed to 19-3-1994 at 3.00 p.m. at Nelavagilu Higher Primary School. The 1st petitioner filed nomination to contest the post of President and the 2nd petitioner filed her nomination to contest for the post of the Vice-President in the above Panchayath. The other 2 contestants for the 2 posts were respondents 3 and 4 respectively.2. The 2nd respondent reached the place of election and except the 11th respondent, all the other 17 members were present. But the 2nd respondent tried to postpone the election meeting...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. D.P. Sharma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2844; 1994(4)KarLJ284; (1995)ILLJ872Kant
L. Sreenivasa Reddy, J1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the ESI Bangalore' for the sake of brevity) has preferred this Appeal against the judgment dated 11th January, 1989 passed by the VII Addl.Sessions Judge, Bangalore.2. The respondent herein is the original accused. The ESI Bangalore, prosecuted him for having committed offences punishable under Section 85(a), 85(e) and 85(g) of the ESI Act on the ground that he had failed to pay the contribution for the wage period ended on 31-3-1986, which should have been paid latest by 21-4-1986 and also failed to submit the returns for the contribution period ended on 31-3-1986, which should have been submitted latest by 30-4-86. The complaint at regards offences punishable under Sections 85(a) and 85(g) of the ESI Act was dismissed as barred by limitation and the case proceeded against the accused in respect of offence under Section 85(e) of the said Act.3. The trial Court found the accused guil...
L. Narasegowda Vs. Hutchappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3543; 1995(1)KarLJ513
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J1. By this Petition the petitioner has sought for the order calling for the record of Village Panchayath Civil Appeal No. 9/84-85 and for issuance of Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 31.3.1986, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub Division, Tumkur, whereby the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal and has directed the Village Panchayath to cancel the licence issued to the petitioner i.e., respondent No. 3 in the appeal.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the present petitioner who claims to be the owner of the site Khaneshumari No. 47 of Gu'ndinapalya, applied for grant of a licence to construct a building as well as to run the Flour Mill therein. The said licence was granted by respondent No. 3 to the present Writ petitioner namely Secretary of the Village Panchayath, Hiredoddavadi, on 21.7.1984. That licence was granted to install the Flour Mill under Section 55 of the Karnataka Village Panchayat & Local Boards Act, 1959....
Parameswaran Vs. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2972; 1994(4)KarLJ668
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. By this Petition, the petitioner has sought the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus against the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore, directing it to take immediate action to remove the unauthorised constructions put up on the pavement and road of H. Siddaiah Road Cross, Bangalore-2 in order to keep the area clean and tidy and he has further prayed for grant of any other relief or issuance of any other Order or Writ.2. The petitioner has claimed to be the owner of the property bearing No. 14, H. Siddaiah Road Cross, Bangalore-2 and he claims to be the owner of the Factory i.e., the Silk Twisting Factory run in that building by him. The petitioner claims himself to be the tax payer. According to his case, the entire area is highly developed area having commercial buildings. According to the petitioner's case, on the pavement of the road, certain constructions alleged to be unauthorised constructions have been made by certain persons and on account of that, problems...
K.R. Chamayya Vs. Accountant General for Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2466; 1994(4)KarLJ42
ORDERHakeem, J. 1. This Writ Petition is before us on a Reference made by the learned Single Judge under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.2. Two main Questions that fall for Consideration in this Petition are:-(1) Whether the proviso to Rule 3 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') is violative of Articles 14 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India? And (2) Whether the expression 'gross amount of pension' occurring in the proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules does not include the commuted portion of the pension? 3. The brief facts are as follows:- The petitioner was earlier working as Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, in the Law Department, While holding that post, he was appointed by the 2nd respondent as a Member of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal') constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, ...
Karnataka State Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2968; 1994(4)KarLJ331
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. I have heard Smt. Bhuvana, Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K. Nagaveni, holding brief for Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Counsel for the opposite parties.2. The petitioner i.e., the Karnataka State Construction Corporation has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the quashing of the notice issued by the respondents on 3-1-1992 bearing No. DA8, PR.52/91-92, a copy of which is Annexure - A to the Writ Petition as well as dated 22-5-1992 bearing No. DA8.PR.16/92-93, a copy of which is Annexure 'C' to the Writ Petition. The notice dated 3-1 -1992 i.e., Annexure 'A' has been issued under Section 143 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 read with Rules 8 and 9 thereof. By this notice, it has been indicated that assessment has been made of the tax as mentioned at page-2 of Annexure 'A' and total amount under that notice has been indicated as Rs. 9,51,060/-. In this notice, it has been mentioned that objections to the assessm...
Gem Travels Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-03-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3063; 1995(4)KarLJ736
Shivaprakash, J1. The above Appeal was heard by a Division Bench on 25.2.1994 consisting of two Judges of this Court who have since ceased to be Judges of this Court consequent to their transfer to other High Courts. The note dated 25.2.1994 in the order-sheet written by the Court Officer reads thus:xxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxxSri N. Kumar for appellants. Sri Radhesh Prabhu for T.S. Pai for respondents. Heard disposed of vide order dictated.Sd/-'2. The Judgment dictated on 25.2.1994 is transcribed and the transcript is found in the records. However, the same is not signed by the learned Judges.3. In the circumstances, a Memo dated 11.7.1994 was filed in Court on 12.7.1994 by the Counsel for the respondent stating that on 25.2.1994 after hearing the learned Counsel the Court 'pronounced the judgment in open court on 25th February, 1994 by delivering the judgment by dictation to the Stenographer. Thus the decision was made known to the Advocates for the parties immediately.' Therefore it is st...
Chickamuniswamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-02-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2963; 1994(4)KarLJ662
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. By this Petition, the petitioner is challenging the Notification bearing No. CLN 2/CR-3/93-94 (Annexure-C) dated 16-8-1993 whereby Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar under Section 4 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act has specified Inorahosahalli as the headquarters of the Panchayat and the area comprising of the villages namely, Buadabele Honnenahalli, Madivala, Guttahalli, Gandhinagara, Kanibele, Doddaankandanahalli, Yaluvahalli, Karamangala, Tyaranahalli, Kashipura, Inorahosahalli, Ombattuguli and Goravanahalli and also the common order dated 7-9-1993 passed in GR.Pan.(K) Revision. Petn.No. 1, 3 and 5 of 93-94 by the second respondent upholding the Notification. The learned Govt. Counsel raised objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition. He submitted that it is a matter of administrative policy and in this case, it is not proper for this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this ju...
Gururaj Gurunath Govind Rao Mutalik Desai Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant267; ILR1994KAR2341; 1994(4)KarLJ441
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. This reference arises out of an order made by two of us (Rajendra Babu and Bhat JJ.) under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act on the question --- 'Whether orders made under Section 118(2b) by the Assistant Commissioner in appeals against the orders of Tahsildar are subject to revision by Divisional Commissioner under Section 118 A of the Act or not?'2. The petition out of which this reference arises is directed against an order made by the Divisional Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 118A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ('the Act', for brevity). The said revision petition was filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order made by the Assistant Commissioner in an appeal confirming an order made by the Tahsildar granting resumption to the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that an order under Section 118(2b) of the Act is 'final' as provided in the Section itself. Relying upon a d...
R. Rajendra Reddy Vs. M/S Sujaya Feeds
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-01-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1427; ILR1994KAR2423; 1994(4)KarLJ159
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the accused in C.C. 258/93 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District, Bangalore, for setting aside the order dated 5-4-93 issuing process against the petitioner and for quashing the entire proceedings. 2. The respondent has filed the complaint in the lower court for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short) alleging that the petitioner had issued a cheque in respect of his earlier liability, that the cheque when presented for encashment was returned with an endorsement that the funds were insufficient and that though a notice of demand was issued to the petitioner he has not paid the amount and that as such he has committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and marking certain documents has order issued of summons to the petitioner. This order of the Magistrate is challenged by the petitioner on vari...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›