Karnataka Court November 1995 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.
Shetty Leasing (India) Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2329; 1996(40)KarLJ237
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These petitions are filed challenging the constitutional validity of section 50-C of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by which the State levies tax on transfer of right to use any goods. 2. On behalf of the petitioners, it is urged that the legislative power under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution to impose to a tax on the transfer of any right to use any goods would not include the power to levy such tax in respect of transactions which are in the courses of sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of sales outside the State levying such tax or in the course of import or export inasmuch as it is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature to impose sales tax on inter-State sales or sales outside the State and also in the course of import or export. It is urged that the law made by the Parliament under article 286(2) and 286(3)(b) read with article 2...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kashim and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ928; 1996(1)KarLJ417
S. Venkataraman, J.1. Though this matter has come up for orders, as both sides are represented and point involved is a short point, it is heard on merits.2. The respondent No. 1 sought for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 18.11.1990. He was travelling in the truck bearing No. CTW 6776 in his capacity as driver employed by the respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the vehicle. His case was that on that day at the time of the accident another driver by name Kashim Sab was driving the vehicle and that he was taking rest, that there were two drivers for the vehicle and that there was a collision between their vehicle and another truck which came from the opposite direction. In that accident, he sustained injuries which have resulted in permanent disability.3. The owner of the vehicle did not contest the claim. Only the insurer appellant filed objections. On the material on record, the Commiss...
Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Fakirappa Yallappa Pujari
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR951; 1996(1)KarLJ265
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. As these seven Revision Petitions involve same question of law and same set of circumstances, these Revision Petitions are being decided and disposed of by one common Order and let a copy of this Order be placed in each of the Revision Petitions as C.R.P.No. 1343 of 1995 is being made and taken as the leading case.2. Heard Sri R.K. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the Revisionist and Sri M.N. Gadag, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.3. The main point which has been urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of the Revisionist for consideration is that in these Cases the application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for referring the matter to the Civil Court has been made after the expiry of the period of limitation and, as the application under Section 18(1) of the Act has been made beyond the period of limitation, the Civil Court s...
Jitendra Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1679; 1995(6)KarLJ669
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The petitioner in this case was a Second Year Student with the BSF Institute of Technology at Bangalore. In the month of February 1995 certain serious incidents took place in that institute wherein, a lot of violence was let loose and some damage to property took place but more importantly atleast four of the students sustained injuries of some consequence. I do not need to recount the background to this incidence because it is unfortunate that such violence was let loose and that too in an institute of this type and the authorities therefore, very rightly decided to take serious steps not only against those responsible for it but for purposes of ensuring that such incidents do not recur. It is in this background that an order came to be passed whereby the present petitioner and three others were rusticated from the institute on the ground that they were the main participants in the incident that took place. Certain punishments were also awarded to several othe...
K. Surappa Vs. V. Venkatesha Reddy and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1995
Reported in: 1997ACJ482; AIR1996Kant258; ILR1996KAR1186; 1996(1)KarLJ534
1. This appeal is filed by the claimant for compensation for injuries sustained by him in an accident against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejecting his claim.2. The petitioner who is a police constable was deputed for election work on 7-3-1971 in booth No. 12 at Harihar in connection with the general elections. On 7-3-1971 at about 9.30 p.m. when he was returning with other staff in bus bearing No. MYY 3122 belonging to the present first respondent and driven by the second respondent before the Tribunal the vehicle dashed against a road side tree and a nearby temple and then capsized. The petitioner alleged that that accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the bus by its driver and that he sustained injuries in that accident. The petitioner had earlier made a claim petition in M.V.C.11/72, but as there was Mis description of the owner the petitioner got that application dismissed and filed this present petition. The Deputy Commissioner,...
M/S Pepsico Restaurants International (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3113; ILR1996KAR1357; 1995(6)KarLJ243
ORDER1. The notice dated August 31, 1995, (Annexure-C), and the Memo/Order dated September 12, 1995, (Annexure-H), issued by the third respondent in No. Ho. PR. 86/95-96 cancelling the licence granted to the first petitioner to run restaurant, are sought to be quashed by the petitioners in this petition. They have further sought for a writ to strike down Sections 443(4) and 444(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') as being ultra vires and unconstitutional. 2. The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its principal place of business at New Delhi. The second petitioner is the Director-Finance of the first petitioner-company having authority to sue and to be sued in the name of the company. The petitioners state that the first petitioner is part of an international chain of restaurants which is carrying on business at No. 4, Brigade Road Bangalore, from June 1, 1995 in pursuance of the licence issued by the second r...
Shankar Vs. Karnataka Land Army Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)KarLJ329; (1997)IIILLJ291Kant
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. What is the age of superannuation applicable to the employees of Respondent -Karnataka Land Army Corporation is the moot question that falls for determination in this batch of writ petitions. Most of the petitioners were working as Task Force Commanders while one each out of them was working as a Tracer, a Second Division Clerk an attender and an Assistant Task Force Commander. Each one of the petitioners appears to have received an endorsement from the Respondent Corporation intimating to them that they will superannuate from the service of the Corporation with effect from the date theyattained the age of 55 years. The petitioners contend that the endorsement issued to them are illegal as the age of superannuation applicable to the employees of the Corporation is 58 years and not 55 years, as suggested by the Respondent. They have therefore assailed the endorsements and prayed for a mandamus directing the Corporation to continue them in service till such ti...
Sujatha Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR553; 1996(1)KarLJ310
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. A suit was filed by the Plaintiff-Bank for recovery of amount owing to the Bank. After service of notice, the defendant put in his appearance and filed the written statement resisting the suit filed by the plaintiff-Bank. Thereafter the suit was posted for plaintiff's evidence to 17.6.1991. On 17.6.1991 P.W.1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 were marked as Exhibits. The defendant remained absent. After hearing the learned Counsel for the plaintiff the suit was posted for Judgment to 22.6.1991. On 19.6.1991, the defendant came forward with an application under Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to advance the case from 22.6.199.1 to 19.6.1991. The defendant filed another application under Section 18 Rule 17A read with Section 151 CPC requesting the Court to recall the order dated 17.6.1991 and to give an opportunity to contest the suit.2. The Trial Court relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in :...
Shankar Vs. Karnataka Land Army Corporation Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-17-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1407
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. What is the age of superannuation applicable to the employees of Respondent-Karnataka Land Army Corporation is the moot question that falls for determination in this batch of Writ Petitions. Most of the petitioners were working as Task Force Commanders while one each out of them was working as a Tracer, a Second Division Clerk an attender and Assistant Task Force Commander. Each one of the petitioners appears to have received an endorsement from the Respondent Corporation intimating to them that they will superannuate from the service of the Corporation with effect from the date they attained the age of 55 years. The petitioners contend that the endorsement issued to them are illegal as the age of superannuation applicable to the employees of the Corporation is 58 years and not 55 years, as suggested by the Respondent. They have therefore assailed the endorsements and prayed for a Mandamus directing the Corporation to continue them in service till such time...
H. Nagaraj Vs. Gulbarga University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant326; ILR1996KAR220; 1996(2)KarLJ530
ORDER1. The present writ petitionhas been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revalue the answer scripts of the petitioner pertaining to Anatomy I and II Papers of First Year M.B.B.S. Course for which he had sat in the examination held in February, 1995.2. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed in the said papers. On announcement of the results, he applied for retotalling of his marks as per the University Regulations. Even on retotalling, the marks remained unaltered. Accordingly, as per the University Regulations governing revaluation, he made an application seeking permission to apply for revaluation of his said answer scripts. By letter dated 12-7-1995 (Annexurc-A), it was communicated to the petitioner that the Vice-Chancellor on appraisal of the report of the Committee constituted for scrutinising answer scripts has opined that the case of the petitioner and similarly situated other students have not been found fit for revaluatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »