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.
Dr. P. Sashikala Vs. Director, Medical Education
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3571; 1996(2)KarLJ140
ORDERBharuka, J.1. The petitioner is presently studying in Post-Graduate Medical Course i.e., M.S. Ophthalmology at Karnataka Medical College (KMC), Hubli. She was admitted to the said course in K.M.C. on 29.6.1994 pursuant to an Entrance Test held in accordance with the Statutory Rules in that regard. Her prayer in the present Writ Petition is that since a seat in the said course has now fallen vacant in Bangalore Medical College at Bangalore, the respondents be directed to concede to the prayer of the petitioner for her transfer from K.M.C. Hubli to B.M.C. Bangalore.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the prayer has relied on the Proviso to Rule 9(3) of the Karnataka Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges (Selection for Admission to Post-Graduate Courses) Rules, 1987 which reads as under:'9(3) No request for change of course or college shall be entertained by the selection committee after the publication of the merit lists and modified lists prepared under Rul...
Narayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3573; 1995(6)KarLJ315
ORDERBharuka, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.2. The present Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to select and admit the petitioners to First Year T.C.H Course in Telugu Medium at Sri Bhavani Teachers Training Institute, Bethamangal, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District (in short, the Institute) which has been declared as Linguistic Minority Institution for imparting education of T.C.H. Course in Telugu Medium.3. It is not in dispute that the Institute which has been established is being administered by a Telugu speaking linguistic minority imparting education in T.C.H. Course in Telugu Medium. The petitioners are the members of the said Telugu speaking minority community. It is said that the admission to the course is governed by the provisions contained under the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Teachers Highe...
K.R. Shashidara K.A.S. and Etc. Vs. Shivaram Puttaraya
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)324; 1996CriLJ1267; ILR1996KAR109; 1996(1)KarLJ372
ORDER1. The petitioner in Cr. Petition No. 141/91 is Accused No. 1 and the petitioner in Cr. Petition No. 473/91 is Accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 454/88 pending on the file of the Additional J.M.F.C., Puttur. 2. The petitioners have in these petitions prayed for setting-aside the order dated 30-10-90 passed by the learned Magistrate and to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 454/88 pending on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Puttur. Hence, these two petitions are disposed of by this common-order. 3. Heard Mr. H. S. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Shri B. M. Krishna Bhat for respondent in both these petitions and Shri S. S. Sripathy, learned counsel appearing for respondent in Cr. Petn. No. 473/91. 4. The respondent-Shivaram Putturaya filed a private-complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., before the learned J. M. F. C., Puttur, against 56 persons alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 143,...
Hucharaya Swamy and Another Vs. Canara Bank and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)KarLJ713; (1996)IIILLJ252Kant
ORDER1. These two petitions have been filed by two dismissed employees of the Canara Bank. I shall refrain from going into an elaborate narration of the facts because the issue involved is identical in both cases. Both the petitioners had joined the services of the Bank several years earlier and had been employed by the institution on the ground that they belong to the reserved category. In this case, they had represented that they belong to scheduled caste category insofar as their caste was Kotegara. There is no dispute about the fact that persons belonging to Kotegara caste come within the category of scheduled castes and consequently, the Bank treated them as such. Several years had elapsed and in the year 1987, since it had come to the notice of the Bank that these two persons had allegedly misrepresented their caste, after verification with the authorities who confirmed that the petitioners belong to the Ramakshatriya caste and not to Kotegara caste, the Bank charge sheeted the e...
Syed Tanveer HussaIn Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR216; 1995(6)KarLJ348
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The Writ Petitioner got himself admitted to Engineering Course in Mechanical (Trade) during 1994-95 in the 3rd respondent College under a reserved category of backward class claiming himself to be of Darveshu caste. That provisional admission was obtained on the basis of a Certificate issued by the District Wakf Board solely on the basis of the affidavit produced by the petitioner. That Certificate of the District Wakf Committee is at Annexure-F.2. Rule 8 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1993 (in short, 'the Rules'), provides that no candidate who claims the benefit of reservation shall be admitted to a technical or professional course of study in an Educational Institution without production of Validity Certificate. In case of other backward classes the said Validity Certificate in Form No. 1-A has to be issued by the Caste and Income Verification Committee as provided un...
Associated Cement Companies Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: 1996(88)ELT348(Kar)
1. As soon as this appeal was called out for hearing, we made it clear to both the counsels that we would not like to take up this appeal for hearing as one of us, (Chief Justice), is a share-holder if the appellant No.1 company. Both the counsels stated that not only they have no objection to this Bench hearing the appeal, but they insisted that appeal should be heard by the Bench. In view of the specific submission made by both the counsels, we had taken up the appeal for hearing. 2. The appellant No.1, The Associated Cement Companies Limited, is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the manufacture of cement. The company had set-up a factory at Wadi Gulbarga district of State of Karnataka some time in the year 1968. The factory initially had a capacity to manufacture 4 lakh Metric Tonnes of cement and subsequently it was increased to 6 lakh Metric tonnes. The manufacture of cement is liable to payment of Excise Duty under the provisions of Central Excise a...
G.T. Raju Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)KarLJ215; (1996)IILLJ181Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This case raises an interesting issue of some significance as far as the field or service law is concerned.2. The brief facts relevant to the controversy are that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was functioning as Executive Engineer in the C.E. Division at Gulbarga of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. It is alleged that in relation to certain payments that were due to contractors, that on May 5, 1993 he issued cheques aggregating to Rs. 26,55,565/- and that on the relevant date, the Corporation had a bank balance of only Rs. 2,71,565/-. The added aspect of the matter which is of some significance is that the petitioner had been entrusted with the functions of that post only in the month of April of that year and the record indicates that he was virtually officiating in the post, though he was entrusted with full powers. The regular appointee had arrived in Gulbarga on May 5, 1993 and ultimately took charge on May 13, 1993. The Corporation co...
Little Kingdom Vs. Puttanna Mandal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR120; 1996(1)KarLJ284
ORDERVishwanath, J 1. Heard both Counsel.2. This Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26-9-1995 passed in HRC No. 2633/1993 on the file of the Small Cause Judge, Bangalore, rejecting IA-V filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.3. IA-V was filed by the petitioner who was respondent-2 in the Court below.4. The Office has raised an objection that the Revision Petition cannot be entertained without the rent being paid or deposited. For the office objections the petitioner has stated that he is not liable to pay the rent because he is not a tenant or a sub-tenant. In the main Petition in the Court below the landlord has filed the same under Section 21(1)(f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The landlord is the first respondent in this Court.5. In the Eviction Petition the landlord has stated clearly that the first respondent in the Court below (2nd respondent herein) is the tenant and the first respondent has sub-let in favour of the 2nd res...
Muniswamy Reddy and Ningamma Trust Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3299; 1995(6)KarLJ553
Pendse, C.J. 1. These three Appeals are directed against common Judgment dated March 16, 1990 delivered by learned Single Judge in three Writ Petitions and ban be conveniently disposed of by common Judgment. The facts unfold at the hearing of the Appeals disclose the dishonest manner in which the appellants have secured the prime lands from Bangalore Development Authority and obviously in collusion with some of the officers of the Authority. The facts speak for themselves and are required to be briefly set out to appreciate the grievance of the respondents - original petitioners.2. The Karnataka Government passed Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and provided for the establishment of a Development Authority for the development of City of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto. The Bangalore Development Authority is constituted under Section 3 of the Act and consists of large number of members. The State Government appoints Commissioner for the authority in accordance with the pro...
Abdul Basheer Vs. Rudraswamy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3628
ORDERVishwanath, J1. Heard. Admitted.2. In this Revision Petition filed by the tenant, the Order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mysore, on 7.8.1995 in Revision (Rent) No. 131/1995 allowing the Revision Petition and setting aside the Order passed by the learned III Addl. First Munsiff, Mysore, in H.R.C. No. 411/1987 on 7.4.1995 dismissing I.A.III under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been challenged.3. The learned Munsiff dismissed I.A.HI under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The learned District Judge, in the revision allowed I.A.III and permitted the landlord to incorporate the ground under Section 21(1)(h).4. The facts necessary to decide the present Revision are:-The Eviction Petition 411/1987 was filed earlier by the landlord S. Krishnaswamy against the present Revision Petitioner-tenant, under Section 21(1)(b)(d) and (o) of the Act. Subsequently, the present respondent in this Revision Petition Sri P. Rudraswamy purchased the property from Krishnaswamy. This Krishnaswamy has bee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »