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.
Jogi K. Verghese and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-12-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1988; 1996(5)KarLJ568
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. Petitioners are the students of MBBS course. They are reading in various private medical colleges which have been impleaded as respondents herein. All these colleges are affiliated to either Bangalore or Mysore University.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the authorities of the respective colleges have been demanding from them arbitrary tuition fee for repeating the courses in particular subject/s so as to make them eligible for reappearing at the examination of such subject/s as 'failed candidates'. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, though the right of the affiliated college to demand the tuition fee has been by and large settled by a Bench of this Court in the case of K. RAJASHEKAR v. THE PRINCIPAL, ADI-CHUNCHANAGIRI INSTITUTE OF MEDCIAL SCIENCE, B.G. NAGAR AND ORS., W.P.No. 35409/1993 dt.25.1.1995, still the authorities are demanding the fee by setting out new interpretations to paragraph 6 of the Government Notification No. HSW ...
Azizabi Vs. St. Mother Oil Mills
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)350; ILR1996KAR546; 1996(1)KarLJ347
ORDERKuranga, J. 1. The question raised in these two Petitions are similar. Hence, these two Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order.2. The petitioners have in these Petitions prayed for quashing of the complaints filed by the first-respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the Judicial I-Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi in C.C.No. 826/1995 and 827/95 and all further proceedings pursuant to the said complaints in so far as they relate to the petitioners who are Accused Nos. 3 and 4 respectively in the said cases.3. The office has raised an objection as to how these Criminal Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are maintainable, seeking relief of quashing of the complaints and further proceedings in the aforementioned Cases on the file of the Judicial-Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, which is situate in Kerala State and does not come within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.These two Petitions are posted for orders on the office objection.4. Sr...
Ranganatha @ Rangaiah Vs. Jayamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC496; ILR1996KAR1542; 1996(1)KarLJ437
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This Revision is under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, Code, has been filed by the husband of the opposite party, against whom, the opposite party had filed a suit for maintenance and while, filing the plaint in the suit, the opposite party had moved an Miscellaneous Application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code, for being adjudged as an indigent person.The Trial Court after consideration of the material on record declared the opposite party to be the indigent person vide order dated 16.9.1995. The husband of the opposite party, has filed this Revision under Section 115 of the Code challenging the order under which the opposite party has been allowed to sue as an indigent person.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who is Respondent No. 1, in the Trial Court. It is urged by the learned Counsel that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the intent of Legislature in the enacting of the provision for allowing t...
Allisab (by His Lrs) Vs. the Assistant Commissioner and Lao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2357
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the appellant's learned Advocate as also the learned Government Advocate in this case. To start with, the appellant's learned Advocate has relied on an earlier decision of this Court in the case of JADE BASAPPA v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, : ILR1995KAR2474 in which this Court had observed as follows:-'The approach of the Courts while dealing with the case of an agriculturist, who has harvested his crop, is to average and round off the figure, the acceptance always being on a little higher side rather than on the lower side. The object has not been to end up with the State paying more money, but to take note of the fact that whatever amount that the landowner seeks is a one-time compensation, the computation of which must never be grudgingly done because even a generous compensation is more than offset by the real land value in the hands of the acquirer and that consequently the lands have always a tremendous potential both for a...
Krishnamurthy Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-11-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1258
Rajendra Babu, J.1. This Appeal is directed against an order made by the learned Single Judge in a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition of land comprised in Sy. No. 150/1P measuring 2 acres 02 guntas situate in Doddigunta Village, Kasaba Hobli, K.R. Puram Taluk, Bangalore District. The Preliminary Notification was published on 2.6.1978 in the Karnataka Gazette on 29.6.1978 by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for formation of a layout for further expansion of scheme between Old Madras Road and Banaswadi Road. A Final Notification was issued on 30th September 1980 which was published in the Gazette on 9.10.1980. The Award in respect of the acquisition of land was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA on 3.5.1990. Three contentions were urged by the petitioner - appellant that the award having not been passed within two years from the date of the publication of the Final Notification, the entire acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 11A of the ...
Executive Engineer, Khb Division Vs. Babu Krishna Waskar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1095; 1996(2)KarLJ93
ORDEREswara Prasad, J. 1. These Appeals are presented by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee and the Karnataka Housing Board respectively, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants in Land Acquisition Proceedings under Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. They paid fixed Court fees of Rs. 15/-(by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee) and Rs. 2/- (by the Karnataka Housing Board) on the quantum of Appeal. The office raised objections with regard to Court fees, stating that the appellants have to pay ad-valor Court fees on the amount they are contesting in these Appeals. Section 4(ii) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is relied upon by the Registry in the office objections.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that neither Section 48 nor Section 4 of Court Fees Act is applicable to the Appeals filed by the beneficiaries against the awards made pursuant to Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisiti...
K.R. Krishnan Nair Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-07-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2094; 1996(5)KarLJ434
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The first petitioner started a hotel at Bhadravathi under the name and style of HOTEL ARYA BHAVAN. The first petitioner in partnership with one Krishna Pillai commenced another Hotel at Shimoga also known as HOTEL ARYA BHAVAN. The said two Hotels, that is the Proprietary firm at Bhadravathi and the partnership firm at Shimoga, applied for and obtained term loans of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively for their businesses from the first Respondent (also referred to as KSFC) by executing necessary loan documents. As per the loan terms, the borrowers had to repay the loan amounts with interest, in certain stipulated instalments. Both Borrowers committed default in paying the instalments. Hence KSFG issued show-cause notices proposing to take action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 ('SFC Act' for short) and the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act 1979 ('Public Moneys Act' for short) for recovery of the amounts d...
Rev. A. Prabhuchand and ors. Vs. Yeshurathna and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: ILR1997KAR29; 1996(1)KarLJ524
ORDERHarinath Tilhari, J. 1. This revision application under Section 115 CPC having been listed along with the application for vacation of the stay order, appearance has been put on behalf of respondents. 2. Learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 10 states that respondent-11 Rev.Harry John has not been the plaintiff in the suit or applicant to the application for interim relief before the Trial Court. It has been pointed out that Rev.Harry John was impleaded in the suit as a formal party as 14th defendant. It has also been brought to my notice that before the Trial Court Rev.Harry John was served with notice and he had put in appearance, and in the lower appellate Court he refused service of notice. If he has been one of the defendants in the suit and defendants 1 to 13 have filed the revision petition and Rev.Harry John's power vakalatnama could not be obtained by the revision petitioners in the present revision petition. So he has been impeded only as formal party.3. At this stage Mr. ...
Sapathagiri Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-06-1995
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2991
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. In these petitions, the petitioners are calling in question the validity of the Rules framed by the respondents under Section 71 of the Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 known as Karnataka Excise (Distillery and Warehouse) (Amendment) Rules, 1992.2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of primary distilleries or the distilleries which have units where the spirit is ultimately converted into potable alcohol.3. The petitioners question the levy of licence fee on three specific grounds:(1) That the licence fee in question is not in fact fee, but is tax in the guise of fee and levy of such fee is impermissible in law;(2) That proper procedure has not been followed in levying the impost in question;(3) That the impost, under the impugned Rules is arbitrary, irrational and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.4. The learned Government Advocate contended that the State has necessary competence to levy not only fee, but also to collect consideration for partin...
State of Karnataka Vs. D.S. Prabhakar Bhatta
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)ALT(Cri)457; 1996CriLJ2817; ILR1996KAR827; 1996(1)KarLJ516
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 377, Cr.P.C. and Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act questioning the legality of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur dt. 2-5-90 passed in S.C. No. 19/87 extending the benefit of the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to first accused-respondent. 2. Respondent and two others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 341, 307 r/w 34 IPC, Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and section 323 r/w, 34 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is that, A. 1-respondent was the servant of A. 3 and A. 2 is the son of A. 3 and the respondent was residing with A. 2 and A. 3. There was some dispute between injured P.Ws. 1 and 2 and accused 2 and 3 as A. 3 had to reach their land through the land of P.Ws. 1 and 2. 3. According to the prosecution, on 3-5-86 at about 6.30 p.m., P.Ws. 1 and 2 had gone in search of their missing cow near the garden of A. 3. A. 1 to A. 3 wrongfully restrained them by abusing them in filthy lan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »