Karnataka Court March 1995 Judgments
Guru Vs. Chief Executive Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1655
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by 14 students of Sree Basaveshwara Pre-University College, Tiptur, Tumkur District and the Administrative Officer of the said Institution, questioning the authority of the first respondent in issuing Annexure-C. They pray for a Writ of Mandamus, restraining the respondents from proceeding with the construction of the building or altering the nature of the vacant space situated in front of and in between the Institution.2. Notice before admission was ordered and Sri Somayaji appeared for the respondents and objections were filed. Both the learned Counsel are heard and the Writ Petition is finally disposed of.3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the land in question belongs to the Government and the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order or to make any construction on the site in question. Their further contention is that the land is within the municipal limits and therefore the first respondent h...
Tag this Judgment!Thimme Gowda Vs. Abbas Ali Bohra
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1818; 1995(5)KarLJ130
ORDERVishwanath, J.1. Heard both the Counsel. The Revision Petition involves a matter of Judicial propriety. The Revision Petition is admitted. The Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3656/92 and he has challenged the order passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore on 7.3.1995 in Misc. 898 and 899/94 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to transfer the two suits in O.S.No. 3656/92 and O.S.No. 4028/92 from the file of the XX Additional City Civil Judge (CCH-4) to some other Court for disposal according to law.2. The admitted facts are that in respect of the property involved in the above said two suits, there were proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and in those proceedings the learned Presiding Officer presiding over C.C.H.4 has admittedly given a finding that the Revision petitioner-plaintiff was not in possession.3. In view of the opinion expressed by the learned Judge presiding over CCH-4, the Revision petitioner-plaintiff moved the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Samyuktha Karnataka (Loka Shikshana Trust) Vs. T.S. Rang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1663; 1995(3)KarLJ258
1. An issue of far reaching consequence has arisen for determination in this set of writ petitions. It basically, centres around the simple question as to whether service benefits accruable to an employee can be nullified by following an age old business gimmick defined under the omnibus umbrella of 'change of management'. In other words, whether such changes whereunder it is contended that the previous concern has become extinct and that the new one has commenced and virtually started with a clean slate, will obliterate the accrued benefits of the employees. Service law prescribes that quite apart from the salary, D.A. etc, that are payable from month to month or annually, that certain other monetary benefits accrue to an employee who has completed the prescribed period of time in an organisation and it is at the stage when the employment comes to an end that these amounts are disbursable. Until that period of time, they are virtually paper entries or a build up of credit. If over a p...
Tag this Judgment!Choodanatha Setty Vs. Gopalachetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-28-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1815
ORDERVishwanath, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision petitioners. The Revision petitioners are applicants who filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. Their application was rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 20.2.1995.2. In O.S.No. 1881/80 a preliminary decree was passed and final decree proceedings were pending. It was at that stage the applicant filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to get themselves impleaded as J.Drs. in the Execution Petition.3. It should be clearly borne in mind that the two Revision petitioners were not parties to the suit.4. At the outset it should be mentioned that Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. does not apply to Execution Proceedings. If the Revision petitioners-applicants have purchased the property involved in the sale proceedings, other remedies are open to them. But they cannot come on record as J.Drs. when they are not parties to the original suit. Hence the Revision Petition is rejected....
Tag this Judgment!Triyambak Venkatesh Hebsur Vs. Dharmaraddi Fakiraddi Khyadad
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant92; ILR1995KAR1816; 1995(5)KarLJ132
ORDER1. In this revision petition, the J.Dr. has challenged the order passed by the learned Munsiff, Navalgund on 12-8-1992 in Execution Case No. 26/79. What the learned Munsiff has done in this order is he has ordered issue of attachment warrant to the extent of 10 acres of land in R.S. 33/2 of Gudisagar Village to realise the decree amount.2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner produced today with memo a copy of the decree passed in O.S. No. 72/70, out of which Execution Case No. 26/79 arose. The decree mentions that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 8,000/- with costs and interest. Nowhere in the decree has it been stated what is the interest. But the execution has been levied for recovery of the amount with interest at 12%. Since the decree does not mention what is the rate of interest allowed (decree was a consent decree), I reduce the interestallowable to the decree-holder from 12% to6% per annum. 3. The next important point for consideration in this revision i...
Tag this Judgment!Tilakraj Bhaktavarmal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1932; [1995]216ITR621(KAR); [1995]216ITR621(Karn)
Tirath S. Thakur J.1. In the petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner calls in question an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-II, rejecting the petitioner's application under section 273A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for waiver of penalty imposable under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. A few facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated at this stage. 2. The petitioner filed a return for the assessment year 1985-86, declaring a total income of Rs. 10,360. An order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Income-tax Officer on January 30, 1987. Some time later, the petitioner claims to have discovered that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 2,25,000 to one Sri S. G. Patil, on a pro note, out of the cash resources available with him, which amount had not been disclosed by the petitioner in the return filed. He appears to have been advised to disclose the same which he did in a disclosure statement filed on Oct...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshamma Vs. Hanumanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: 1996ACJ914; ILR1996KAR161; 1996(5)KarLJ242
Narayan, J 1. The claimant has filed this Appeal aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company has filed cross objections questioning the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence.2. A few facts necessary for disposal of this Appeal and cross objections are as follows:The appellant who was working as a cooli has alleged that on 15.11.1983 at about 9 a.m. she was moving in Anaveri-Holehonnur road and at that time a tiller driven by respondent No. 1 therein rashly and negligently came behind and dashed against her as a result, she fell down and the wheel of the tiller ran over crushing her left hand. She was immediately taken to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga where she was treated. This claim is disputed by the owner and the insurer who have inter alia contended that there is no motor accident and the claim is a false one. The parties have led in some evidence before the Tribunal in support of their respective contentions. On consideration of the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumanthappa Sannappa Myadeneri Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1867; 1995(2)KarLJ472
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right to quarry/mine and dispose of the granite found in the land mentioned in the schedule to this Writ Petition, namely, the piece of land bearing Sy.No. 98 with an area of 4 acres and 38 guntas situate in Village Arasanakeri Village in Irakalagada Hobli, Koppal Taluk, Raichur District.2. The petitioner in this Writ Petition has asserted that he is an agriculturist and that the revenue entries stand in his name relating to his ownership of the land Sy.No.98 to an extent of 4 acres and 38 guntas.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Annexure-A to this Writ Petition, namely, the copy of the revenue records. The entry in column-10 per se indicates the source of possession of the land by the petitioner as read and explained by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the land had been granted...
Tag this Judgment!Alex D' Souza Vs. Dinoysius Mohan Pinto
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1123; 1995(3)KarLJ286
Bharuka, J.1. This Appeal has been preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court whereby after reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed in terms of the prayer made.2. Plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession, According to the schedule to the plaint, the suit property being one of the portions of the twin quarters was situated at S.No. 129 of Athikudige in Koppa Taluka with the boundaries set out therein. The defendant contested the suit by asserting that the suit property is situated in Survey No. 130 of the said village and he is the owner thereof. During the course of the trial to ascertain as to whether the suit property is situated in Survey No. 129 or 130 the trial Court appointed the Assistant Director of Land Records as the Court Commissioner to make a survey and submit a report in this re...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramaiah Vs. Chief Election Commissioner
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR1821; 1995(3)KarLJ433
Eswara Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is one of the candidates seeking election as a member of the Zilla Panchayath, Bangalore Urban District from Constituency bearing No. 6 Hesaraghatta. He prays issuance of Mandamus directing the respondents not to hold re-poll or fresh elections on 26.3.95 for No. 6 Hesaraghatta Constituency and to declare that he is the duly elected candidate from the said Constituency.2. The calender of dates for election was announced on 18.2.1995 for all the polling stations of No. 6 Hesaraghatta Zilla Panchayath Constituency. The polling was held and the counting of votes was completed on 19.3.1995. The petitioner obtained 18 votes more than the rival candidate. Recount was ordered on 19.3.95 and was done on 20.3.95 and it was found that the petitioner polled 18 votes more than the nearest rival candidate. The result of the elections was not announced and on the request of the Returning Officer, the first respondent felt that there was a discrepancy, which in the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »