Karnataka Court December 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.
K.M. Munivenkatappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)KarLJ538; (1996)IILLJ1023Kant
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. This petition assails an order of termination from service dated July 23, 1994 passed against the present petitioner who was at the relevant time an employee of the 3rd respondent-Society (hereinafter referred to as 'HOPCOMS'). The respondents allege that it was necessary to place the petitioner under suspension which they did on May 21, 1993 on the ground that he had committed certain acts of misconduct. The allegation against the petitioner as far as this case is concerned relates to incidents that took place in the month of May 1993 and it is alleged that on May 17, 1993, the petitioner who was working as Manager of the Mysore Branch informed the godown keeper that the Managing Director had telephoned him to purchase mangoes from one M.R. Gopal and pay Rs. 80,000/- as advance. The petitioner is alleged to have induced the go down keeper to prepare a purchase bill without receiving the actual goods, which the godown keeper did not agree to do. It is further ...
Andhra Bank Vs. Sunanda Industrial Chemicals (P.) Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR183; 1995(6)KarLJ346
ORDERHakeem, Ag. C.J.1. This Appeal by the plaintiff is against disallowing of interest at the rate of 8% per annum with quarterly interest on certain amount. The total claim on this account comes to Rs. 5,76,627/- on which Court fee of Rs. 37,972/- would be payable.2. The contention of Sri G.S. Venkatachalapathy, learned Counsel for the appellant is that since no Court Fee is payable in respect of interest pendente lite the Appeal has to be valued only in accordance with the provisions of Section 47(ii) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. That would be Rs. 200/- only, which has been paid on this Appeal. We do not agree with this contention in view of the clear provisions of Explanation (3) to Section 49 of the Act, which reads thus:-'Explanation 3 :- In claims which include the award of interest subsequent to the institution of the suit the interest accrued during the pendency of the suit till the date of decree shall be deemed to be part of the subject matter of the ...
Munivenkatappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-14-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR886
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. This Petition assails an order of termination from service dated 23.7.1994 passed against the present petitioner who was at the relevant time an employee of the 3rd respondent Society (hereinafter referred to as 'HOPCOMS'). The respondents allege that it was necessary to place the petitioner under suspension which they did on 21.5.1993 on the ground that he had committed certain acts of misconduct. The allegation against the petitioner as far as this case is concerned relates to incidents that took place in the month of May 1993 and it is alleged that on 17.5.1993, the petitioner who was working as Manager of the Mysore Branch informed the Godown Keeper that the Managing Director had telephoned him to purchase mangoes from one M.R. Gopal and pay Rs. 80,000/- as advance. The petitioner is alleged to have induced the Godown Keeper to prepare a purchase bill without receiving the actual goods, which the Godown Keeper did not agree to do. It is further alleged that on s...
Hanumantappa Dyamappa Jadar Vs. Mallavva and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant183; ILR1996KAR963; 1996(1)KarLJ388
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is the second defendant in O.S, No. 369/1973, has filed this application under O. 20, R. 18, C.P.C. for declaration of his one-seventh share in the suit schedule property and in pursuance of such a declaration for a direction to divide the properties by metes and bounds and the petitioner be put in his separate exclusive possession of the suit schedule property which will be allotted to his share. O.S. No. 369/73 was a suit for partition. It was decreed that all the parties to the suit would be entitled to one nineth share of the suit schedule property. It is common ground that there was no final decree and the decree in O.S. No. 369/73 was only a preliminary decree. Before passing the final decree it is not disputed that the plaintiff and fourth defendant died (namely Mallavva-plaintiff, Yashvant Dyamappa Jadar-fourth defendant).2. It is brought to my notice that petitioner's share on the death of plaintiff and fourth defendant has enlarged fromone-ninety t...
Kanthilal D. Gandhi Vs. Peddarangappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1386; 1996(2)KarLJ83
Venkataraman, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court staying the proceedings in Suit O.S. 290/86 filed by him under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act ('the Act' for short). 2. The plaintiff-appellant has filed a suit for dissolution of a firm which was constituted under a Partnership Deed dated 5.2.1980 which was subsequently amended on 19.6.1980. That firm is an unregistered firm. The respondent-defendant on putting his appearance filed an application under Section 34 of the Act seeking stay of the proceedings of the suit on the ground that clause 13 of the Partnership Deed provides for referring all disputes between the partners for arbitration and that he is ready and willing to do all things necessary for proper conduct of the arbitration as per the agreement. The appellant opposed that application on the grounds that as the firm was not registered the application was barred under Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act and that in any event in view of the ser...
United Trading Agency Vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2580
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The appellants in these two cases are common. For the assessment years April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991 and April 1, 1991 to March 31, 1992, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes revised certain assessments in exercise of the powers under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. For the said two assessment years, the assessments wee concluded on October 31, 1992, by the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes levying tax at 10 per cent by holding the goods dealt with by the appellant - Vicco products like tooth-paste, tooth-powder and cream come under entry 5, Part M of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('the Act', for short). Thereafter, the assessing authority resorted to proceedings under section 12A of the Act on the ground that the products sold by the appellant are liable to tax at 15 per cent under entry 10 of Part T of the Second Schedule. On appeal, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes set aside the reassessme...
N.M. Venkata Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-13-1995
Reported in: 2(1997)ACC204
M.F. Saldanha, J. 1. The petitioner in this case has raised an interesting contention that despite his having put in hardly 103 days in the aggregate with the Air Force, that he should be awarded a disability pension on the ground that he was discharged from service because of such a permanent disability. The respondents have seriously contested his claim and it is therefore necessary to briefly recount the relevant facts. The petitioner was recruited as an Airman with the Indian Air Force and completed the formalities and joined his duties in the month of May, 1978. His case is that there are rigorous medical tests that one is required to undergo before enrolment to such a post in the armed forces and that he completed all the requisite formalities at the end of which having been found fit, he was directed to join his training. According to the petitioner, as a result of various jobs assigned to him, he suffered a permanent disability to his left ear and that starting from the followi...
Mohammed Ajmal (Major) Vs. Assistant Director and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas146(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. The petitioner, who claims to be a permanent resident of Bhatkal, has filed this petition for quashing the seizure of Indian currency of Rs. 5,55,000 by the second respondent under seizure proceedings drawn on April 4, 1989 (annexure 'O') contending that such seizure amounts to re-seizure which is illegal and without jurisdiction. He also seeks a direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to release and deliver back to the petitioner, the said currency of Rs. 5,55,000 seized under mahazar, dated April 4, 1989, on the ground that it is retained illegally and without jurisdiction. 2. It is necessary to refer to the facts leading to the impugned seizure. 3. The petitioner claims that he travelled from Bombay to Bhatkal by a Maharashtra luxury bus and got down at Bhatkal on February 18, 1986, at about 19.15 hours, with three packages. When he got down from the bus, certain officers of the Customs Department approached him and asked his name and address; the petitioner fur...
Mohammed Ajmal (Major) Vs. the Assistant Director Enforcement Director ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1995
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas499a(Kar); 1996CriLJ3644; 1995(6)KarLJ281
ORDER1. The petitioner, who claims to be a permanent resident of Bhatkal, has filed this petition for quashing the seizure of India currency of Rs. 5,55,000/- by the second respondent under seizure proceedings drawn on 4-4-1989 (Annexure-0) contending that such seizure amounts to re-seizure which is illegal and without jurisdiction. He also seek a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to release and deliver bank to the petitioner the said currency of Rs. 5,55,000/- seized under mahazar dated 4-4-1989, on the ground that it is retained illegally and without jurisdiction. 2. It is necessary to refer to the facts leading to the impugned seizure. 2.1. The petitioner claims that he travelled from Bombay to Bhatkal by a Maharashtra Luxury Bus and got down at Bhatkal on 18-2-1986 at about 19-15 hours, with three packages. When he got down from the bus, certain Officers of the Customs Department approached him and asked his name and address; petitioner furnished them and also produced two tickets s...
Manju Vs. Bangalore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR49; 1996(1)KarLJ321
ORDERShivaprakash, J 1. In this Petition the legality and validity of the order dated 28.11.1995 passed by the Registrar, Bangalore University who is the second respondent is questioned. Under the said order, the second respondent has rejected the application dated 26.6.1995 'for renewal of registration' of the petitioner in the Electoral Rolls of Registered Graduates of Bangalore University on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the requirements of the relevant Statutes pertaining to the elections to the authorities of the Bangalore University.2. The Petitioner is a sitting member of the Senate of the first respondent University having been elected in March 1992. Subsequently, in June 1992 he was elected by the Senate from amongst its members to the Syndicate in terms of Section 24(vi) of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. As on today he continues to be a member of the Syndicate of the first respondent University.3. Statute No. 12.03 provides for Registration of Gra...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »