Karnataka Court July 1995 Judgments
Ramu and Others Vs. Papaiah and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant51; 1995(4)KarLJ421
1. This is defendants second appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 12-2-1985, delivered by First Additional Civil Judge, Mysore (Sri . Shankara-narayana Bhat) in Regular Appeal No. 71/80 (Singamma y. Ramu and another), arising out of judgment and decree dated 31-3-1980, passed by First Additional Munsiff, Mysore, dismissing the plaintiffs claim in Original Suit No. 937/75, allowing the plaintiffs appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as decreeing the plaintiffs claim in the suit for declaration, but not for possession. 2. The plaintiffs case in the nut shell has been that the plaintiff i.e., the present respondent had purchased the suit schedule house from the first defendant as well as from his father Chinnakotaiah for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,000/- by registered sale deed dated August 5, 1963. The plaintiffs case is that she was put in possession of the said house and that katha, during mutation were made in her name and she...
Tag this Judgment!Savithramma Vs. H. Gurappa Reddy Adn Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant99; ILR1995KAR3389; 1995(4)KarLJ272
ORDER1. The circumstances in which a Court will review a final decision are varied and in the course of numerous reported cases, many different facets of the law have been settled. The present case presents a slightly more interesting situation in so far as the present review application has been very stoutly resisted by the learned counsel who represents the parties to the original appeal in which that order was passed. The present applicant was admittedly not a party to that proceeding and is therefore labelled as a stranger. The applicant contends that she ought to have been a party and that as a result of the final order passed in the appeal, that she is seriously prejudiced and that therefore she has every right to claim a review of that decision. Her contention is also that this is the appropriate remedy and that the circumstances in which the earlier order was passed are (sic) manifestly unfair. There is a direct charge to the effect that fraud was played on the Court in the ear...
Tag this Judgment!Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. Manjog H ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1995
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2561]; ILR1995KAR3430; 1996(1)KarLJ80; (1996)IILLJ286Kant
Venkataraman, J. 1. In all these Appeals, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether interest at 12% per annum is payable in respect of contributions which the employers are found to be due after the amendment to Section 39 of the ESI Act coming into force. 2. In all these Appeals, on the applications made by the employers under Section 75 of the Act, the ESI Court after determining the contribution payable by the employers has passed an order directing the employer/respondents to pay that amount together with interest at 6% per annum from the due date to the date of payment. Section 39(5) of the ESI Act was amended by Act 29 of 1989 with effect from 20-10-1989. The amended Section reads as hereunder :- 'Section 39(5)(a) :- If any contribution payable under this Act is not paid by the principal employer on the date on which such contribution has become due, he shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate a...
Tag this Judgment!Vithal Mahadev Patil Vs. the State by Belgaum Rural Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)ALT(Cri)482; 1996CriLJ1796
Mirdhe, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant who was the accused No. 1 in the trail court against the judgment dt. 20/21-4-1994 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum in S.C. No. 187/91 convicting the appellant - accused for the offence punishable under S. 302, IPC and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and convicting him for the offence punishable under S. 324, IPC and sentencing him to R.I. for one year and also convicting him for the offence punishable under S. 3(1) r/w. S. 25(IB) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentencing him to R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for three months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under S. 5 r/w S. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under S. 5 r/w. S. 27 of the Arms Act. All the above substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. We have he...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. Robert D'Silva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2549; 1995(6)KarLJ120
Eswara Prasad, J. 1. These Writ Appeals are heard and disposed of by this Common Judgment as common Questions arise for Consideration. Writ Appeal No. 629/95 arises out of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.26054/93 and W.As. 716 and 717/95 arises out a Common Judgment in W.P.Nos. 3603 and 3604/94.2. The petitioners in these three Writ Petitions contended that they are deemed to have been granted permission to cut and transport the trees belonging to them by virtue of the deeming provision contained in Section 8(4)(ii) of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short) and the Rules made thereunder, inasmuch as the Tree Officer failed to inform them of his decision within one year from the date of receipt of the application by him. They sought a declaration that the sanction to fell the trees is deemed to have been granted and that they are entitled to cut and transport the trees from the lands belonging to them, and they further sought issuance of dire...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka Wine Merchants Association Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2599; 1995(4)KarLJ214
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. In these Petitions, petitioners are calling in question the Constitutional validity of Section 24 of the Karnataka Excise Act as amended by Act No. 2/1994 and the' Rules framed under the Act known as the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) (Amendment) Rules, 1995 issued vide Notification No. FD 10 PES 95(i) dated 31st May, 1995 as ultra vires the Act and beyond the legislative competence of the State.2. The petitioners are either Wine Merchants Association or the dealers in Indian and Foreign liquor. They obtained licences from the concerned authorities as provided under the relevant statute and the Rules i.e., the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the '1968 Rules'). The petitioners have licences either in Form CL-1, CL-2 or CL-9 for dealing liquor in wholesale or retail - or running Refreshment Rooms or Bar & Restaurants. Petitioners contend that their trade is controlled by the provi...
Tag this Judgment!irangouda Vs. the State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant95; ILR1995KAR2645; 1995(5)KarLJ593
ORDER1. In this civil petition, petitioner has prayed for recalling the order dated 18-7-1986 passed in Writ Petition No. 32247/82 as well as for recalling the records of the said writ petition, which was renumbered before the Appellate Authority in pursuance of order dated 18-7-1986 to be R.A. No. 145/86.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manjunath, made submission on the line of the petition and according to the petitioner had filed the above mentioned writ petitionNo. 32247/82 in this Court whereby the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Land Tribunal under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act declaring that the holding of the petitioner was in excess of the ceiling limit by 13 acres 20 guntas. By an order dated 18-7-1986 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. P. Bopanna, the above mentioned writ petition No. 32247/82 had been transferred for hearing and decision by the Appellate Authority and parties were directed to appear before the appellate authority...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Karnataka Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. G.P. Gopal and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2395]; ILR1995KAR2912; 1995(5)KarLJ49
ORDER1. The employer challenges the interim order passed by the Labour Court, Bangalore on IA-I. The worker, a driver working under the petitioner-bank, was dismissed from service after an alleged domestic enquiry held on January 6, 1983. The dismissal ended in a dispute and was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court raised preliminary issues on the validity of the domestic enquiry. It is admitted by both the parties that the Labour Court has held that there was no valid enquiry and the finding of the domestic enquiry was set aside on the ground that the enquiry was conducted vitiating the principles of natural justice. Subsequent thereto IA-I was filed by the worker for an interim relief at the rate of 100% of the wages last drawn by him at the time of his dismissal. After hearing the respective counsel for the parties the Labour Court passed the following Order : 'The application is allowed. The second Party is directed to either to reinstate the first party back into service...
Tag this Judgment!Manjunatha Roller Flour Mills Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commission ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: [2003]133STC222(Kar)
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions the question involved is whether the State Government, which had professed and declared to exempt wheat products including wheat bran from levy of tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter in short, 'the Act') with effect from October 19, 1991, has been successful in carrying out the same in respect of wheat bran through the legislative process envisaged under the Act.2. The petitioners, who all own roller flour mills, are engaged in the business of manufacturing wheat products like atta, suji, maida and wheat bran. All are registered dealers under the provisions of the Act. According to them though the State Government has exempted wheat bran, as well being one of wheat products, from levy of tax under the Act, but the sales tax authorities who are the creatures of the Act and are the functionaries of the Government, in an open defiance of the governmental intention manifested through various noti...
Tag this Judgment!Manjunatha Roller Flour Mills Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2196
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions the question involved is whether the State Government, which had professed and declared to exempt wheat products including Wheat Bran from levy of tax under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter in short, the Act) with effect from 19.10.1991, has been successful in carrying out the same in respect of Wheat Bran through the legislative process envisaged under the Act.2. The petitioners, who all own Roller Flour Mills, are engaged in the business of manufacturing wheat products like Atta, Soji, Maida and Wheat Bran. All are registered dealers under the provisions of the Act. According to them though the State Government has exempted Wheat Bran, as well being one of wheat products, from levy of tax under the Act, but the Sates Tax authorities who are the creatures of the Act and are the functionaries of the Government, in an open defiance of the Governmental intention manifested through various Notification...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »