Karnataka Court September 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.
Parvathi Chitra Mandir Vs. the Entertainment Tax Officer and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Kant215; ILR1994KAR2955
ORDERBharuka, J.1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 9th June 1994 passed inWrit Petition No. 1737 of 1994, by which the learned single Judge has refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the appellant can have his say before the departmental authorities when the coercive action has been initiated against him in relation to the collection of the entertainment tax.2. The facts as set out by the appellant may be stated as follows:Appellant is the owner of a cinema theatre at Kerur, Taluka Badami, Bijapur District. He has opted for composition of his entertainment tax liability under and in accordance with S. 4A of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the Act'). Accordingly he was granted a permit in Form No. 1V-B by the Entertainment Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Bagalkot effective from 1-4-1991 after determining his liability by treating the population of Kerur as less than 15,000. Since as per the last census published on 1...
Mary Teresa Morris Vs. Management of St. Anne's Educational Society
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3152; 1995(1)KarLJ497
ORDERMohan Kumar, J. 1. These four Revision Petitions raise a common question and hence were heard together and are being disposed of by a Common Order. The petitioners herein were appointed as probationary teachers under the 1st respondent. The period of probation as per the appointment orders is two years. The date of appointment are as follows:i) Petitioner in CRP No. 2550/94 16-5-1992 (She commenced to work from 1-6-1992) ii) Petitioner in CRP No. 2551/94 1-8-1992 iii) Petitioner in CRP No. 2552/94 25-6-1992 (It is her case that she commenced to work from 1-6-1991) iv) Petitioner in CRP No. 2553/94 25-6-1992 (In her case the appointment order is dated 1-6-1992) By order dated 28-3-1994, i.e., before the completion of two years, their services were terminated with effect from 31-3-1994. This termination has been challenged by the petitioners by filing appeals before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were presented on 7-4-1994 and the Tribunal passed an interim order in...
State Vs. P.P. Miltan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3308; 1994(4)KarLJ588
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. This Revision Petition preferred by the State is directed against an order whereby the learned trial Magistrate has discharged the accused. Briefly stated, the accused who was facing trial for an offence of theft which relates to a charge sheet filed in the year 1992 He had been released on bail for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety. When the matter was taken up in January 1994 for recording of evidence, it was found that the accused was absconding. The learned Magistrate took necessary steps to secure his attendance by adopting coercive steps against the surety. He also recorded the evidence of one witness in the absence of the accused under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, since the police had filed a report to the effect that the accused was not traceable, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused and closed the proceedings. It is this action that is called into question in the present proceeding.2. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that t...
Khatalsaheb Wd. Khadirsaheb Inamdar Vs. Ameersaheb
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-21-1994
Reported in: I(1995)DMC245; ILR1995KAR78; 1995(1)KarLJ663
Mirdhe, J 1. This Appeal is preferred by the appellants who were the plaintiffs in the trial Court against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1982 passed by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, in R.A.No. 19 of 1981 allowing the Appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1981 passed by the Principal Civil Judge. Betgaum, in O.S.No. 28 of 1968.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the records of the case.3.The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/5 share in the suit schedule properties referred to in Schedule A for partitioning by metes and bounds on the averments that one Gousmia who was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants and owner of those properties died leaving behind him Khanjabi, Imamsaheb and Khandarsaheb. The plaintiffs are the sons of Khadarsaheb whereas the defendants are the heirs of Imamsaheb. The case of the plaintiffs is tha...
H. Hanumanthappa Vs. M. Krishnamurthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-20-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR2895; 1995(1)KarLJ439
ORDERVasantha Kumar, J 1. These Revision Petitions arise out of proceeding initiated by landlord under Clauses (h) & (p) of Proviso to Sub-section (1), of Section 21 read with Section 21A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act numbered as HRC 1758/83 wherein the trial Court negatived the reliefs under Clause (h) of Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act read with Section 21A of the Act sought by the landlord and allowed the relief sought for under Clause (p) of Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, both the Tenant and as well as the landlord have preferred these Revision Petitions.2. C.R.P. 3571/88 is filed by the tenant aggrieved by the order passed under Clause (p) of Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. C.R.P. 4860/88 is filed against the order passed under Clause (h) of Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. One of the questions raised by the tenants relates to interpretation of Clause (p) of Proviso to Su...
K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Vasthanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-19-1994
Reported in: ILR1995KAR591; 1994(5)KarLJ258
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this Petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, for quashing the Resolution Annexure-A dated 27.12.1993 annexed to the Writ Petition. In relief Clause-2, the date has been wrongly given as 8.3.1993. The correct date of Annexure-A as appears from Annexure-A is 27.12.1993. This fact that 8.3.1993 mentioned in the relief clause in the Writ Petition is a typographical error stands fortified from the fact that in the interim relief clause, the date of Annexure-A is mentioned as 27.12.1993 as is given in Annexure-I.2. That as per, Annexure-A, the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) in its Meeting dated 27.12.1993 considered the application of R-1 for grant of permit to run the mini bus in Bellary City on the route mentioned in OPD-CB, Bellary-Mothi Circle, Vaddarabande, Sangam Circle, Gadagichannappa Circle, Durgamma Temple, Havambhavi (up and down) for 10 trips per day, on trial basis and has further directed the Secret...
B. Vasanthy Urs Vs. Shahtajkhan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-16-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3124; 1994(4)KarLJ585
ORDERVasantha Kumar, J. 1. Heard both the Counsel on record.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the application filed by the landlord under Section 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act in Miscellaneous proceedings No. 69/93 initiated by the tenant in respect of an ex parte order passed in HRC 967/1992 is maintainable or not.3. Few facts briefly stated are as follows: The landlord initiated eviction proceedings under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) and (h) of Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, the proceedings being numbered as 967/92. The trial Court on 2-2-1993 allowed the relief sought for by the landlord. The tenant inspite of service of notice remained absent and as such the order that has been passed by the trial Court in HRC 967/92 has to be construed as an ex parte order of eviction.4. Agg rieved by the ex parte order that has been passed in HRC 967/92, the tenant preferred a miscellaneous proceedings under Order 9 Rule...
Gurumurthy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3014; 1994(4)KarLJ654; (1995)ILLJ365Kant
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. This petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of both the parties. 2. The State Government has rejected the Reference at Annexure-F on the ground that there is delay of six years. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no delay as set out in paragraph-4 of his petition submitted to the Government at Annexure-C. He also brings to my notice that at paragraph-4 of Annexure-C he has stated the reasons for the delay, if any. He has also filed a rejoinder to Annexure-C which is at Annexure-E. He has stated in Annexure-E that there is no intentional delay in raising the dispute. 4. Mr. P. D. Vishwanath, learned Counsel for the second respondent brought to my notice the Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Prem Singh and Ors. v. Labour Commissioner Punjab Chandigarh and Ors. 1994 I CLR 1110 wherein the High Court has held that the delay can be one of the grounds for rejecting the Reference, whereas, the learned counsel for t...
Gandhinagar Citizens' Association Vs. Bangalore City Muncipal Corporat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-15-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3310; 1994(4)KarLJ607
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. This Public Interest Writ Petition has been filed by certain public spirited citizens of the Gandhinagar area who have styled themselves as the Gandhinagar Citizens Association. They have presented this Petition being aggrieved by the proposal concerning a small park which is used by the citizens of that area and which is the only open space available in the region being converted into a Stadium. The citizens have objected to the construction of the stadium in that area which they contend was a motivated decision at the instance of certain influential forces. It has been submitted on their behalf that the construction of a stadium is only a camouflage of a sort to screen the development of commercial blocks which may also incidentally be partially used for housing. What is in fact pointed out to this Court, is that there exist some plants and trees in that garden and that it is the only green area in that region and that it is therefore against the public interest, ...
M. Hanumanthappa Vs. Executive Director, Kolar District Milk Co-operat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-12-1994
Reported in: ILR1994KAR3725; 1994(5)KarLJ54
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J1. This Petition is directed against the Notification dated 16.2,1994 issued by the Respondent No. 1 for appointment on the post of Technical Officer. The post of Technical Officer had been advertised calling upon the applications from the candidates who possess requisite qualifications viz., B.E. (Electrical), (Mechanical) and Dairy Engineering.2. The petitioner claims that he is a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering and he had been appointed as Dairy Supervisor (Grade-II) on 2.5.1985 vide Arinexure 'B' to the Writ Petition. The petitioner's further case is that, some time in June 1991, the petitioner was granted time bound promotion on the post of Senior Dairy Supervisor. The petitioner has pleaded that the next promotion from the post of Senior Dairy Supervisor is to the cadre of Technical Officer/Manager. The petitioner has further averred that he has been holding the post of Technical Officer/Manager of Gowribidanur from 24th October 1991. But, instea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »