Karnataka Court July 1995 Judgments
Biological E. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: [1997]104STC234(Kar)
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. This petition is filed by a manufacturer of pharmaceutical preparations. A notification was issued by the first respondent as under : 'In exercise of the powers conferred by section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957), the Government of Karnataka hereby exempts with effect from the first day of April, 1994 the tax payable by a dealer (other than a manufacturer or his agent) under section 6B of the said Act on the turnover relating to sale of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.' 2. This notification is attacked by the petitioner on the ground that it makes an invidious discrimination between the dealer and manufacturer or his agent who is also dealer for the purpose of levy of tax arising under section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner contended that, on a somewhat similar question on an earlier occasion this Court examined the matter in Writ Petition Nos. 5361 to 5363 of...
Tag this Judgment!Padubidari Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangh Niyamitha Vs. State of Karnat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2279; 1995(4)KarLJ309
ORDERBharuka, J.1. The Petitioner Co-operative Society is aggrieved by the Government Order dated 24.6.1995 (Annexure-C) whereby the Government pursuant to its powers under Section 29(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (the Act, for short) has appointed three persons as its nominees in the Committee of the petitioner-Society.2. Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Act. Against the total share capital of the petitioner-Society, the Government has subscribed Rs. 1 lakh towards the same. Bye-law 14 of the Society provides for constitution of the Managing Committee, an English translation whereof (Annexure-B) as furnished by the petitioner, provides as under:'Bye-law No. 14: Governing Body 1(A). For carrying on the Administration of the Society there shall be a committee of 11 members and in the said committee the following representatives shall be there.(i) Four elected members among the small and marginal farmers as their represent...
Tag this Judgment!Sharana Gowda Vs. Narayana
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-25-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3241; 1995(6)KarLJ307
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This interim application for condonation of delay will virtually decide the fate of this Appeal. The applicant was the defendant before the trial Court in a Civil Suit wherein a dispute arose with regard to the possession of a certain plot of land. The Plaintiff had contended that he has acquired a title to the site by virtue of the law of adverse possession and he prayed for a consequential relief against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The suit was contested and the learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It is relevant for me to record that this litigation was preceded by some other legal proceedings which went up to the Supreme Court where the question with regard to the alleged allocation of the plot in question to the defendant was in issue. The plaintiff had contended inter-alia that he was eligible for reconveyance of that plot. That aspect of the matter is really subsidiary to the pres...
Tag this Judgment!Subhan Khan Vs. J.H. Patel and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Kant167; 1995(3)KarLJ559
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the first respondent in the main Election Petition to strike out Respondents 2 and 3 from the array of parties in the Election Petition. Respondents 2 and 3 in the Election Petition are the Returning Officer, 158 --Channagiri Legislative Assembly Constituency, Channagiri and the District Election Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga, respectively.2. The main prayer in the Election Petition is to declare that the declaration of the election of first respondent is void on the ground of Section 100(l)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in respect of 158, Channagiri Legislative Assembly Constituency and for an order for repoll in the constituency and pass such other orders as deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. In I.A.I., it is alleged that respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to the Election Petition as it is in violation of Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act therei...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. S. Alfred Slim
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2656; 1995(4)KarLJ561; (1996)ILLJ1187Kant
ORDERMohan Kumar, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the application filed by the worker-1st respondent under Section 10(4-A) is barred by limitation. The worker was dismissed from service on 30-9-1982. An application under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act was moved by the employer-petitioner. By order dated 3-10-1985 the said application was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal. The said order was challenged by the employer by filing Writ Petition No. 2094 of 1986 which was dismissed on 28-7-1989. Against the said dismissal order Writ Appeal No. 1912 of 1989 was filed. This Court by judgment dated 9-1-1990 set aside the order of the Tribunal and also the order in W.P. No. 2094 of 1986 and remitted the matter for fresh disposal. On 13.6.1991 after fresh consideration permission was granted by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) to dismiss the worker. The application under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act was moved by the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Kapoorchand Vs. Shanthabai SIndia
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2611; 1995(4)KarLJ445
ORDERShivaprakash, J. 1. The eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(h) of the KRC Act, 1961 has been allowed by the trial Court. The premises in question is the ground floor of No. 67, Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. The respondent who is an elderly lady resides in the first floor of the said building. The petitioner-tenant is in occupation of the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-.2. It is the case of the respondent that she is in indifferent health and she desired than her younger sister who is a widow to reside in the ground floor of the building so that she could be of assistance to her. It is in evidence that the younger sister has got two daughters and two sons, out of which one daughter is married and living with her husband separately. The unmarried daughter and two sons, who are in their twenties, are residing with their mother.3. The accommodation available to the landlady in the first floor is no doubt much more than what ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnataka State Government Daily Wages Employees Federation Vs. State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2653; 1995(5)KarLJ109; (1996)ILLJ1168Kant
ORDERMohan Kumar, J.1. When these Writ Petitions came up for preliminary hearing. Smt. Sujatha HCGP, took notice on behalf of respondents. These Writ Petitions are being heard and disposed of as agreed to. 2. The short question raised in this Writ Petition is the competency of the Labour Commissioner to issue a Circular as in the nature impugned herein. The common set of fact in these Cases are that a set of workers employed in the Government Department sought to raise an industrial dispute with respect to the dispute described as coming within the ambit of Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act. The Conciliation Officer relying on the Circular issued by the second respondent (produced as Annexure-A in WP 14515 to 518/95) has declined to conciliate and submit its report to the Government. The second respondent issued the said Circular to the effect that the dispute between the worker and the Company owned by the Government would come within the purview of the Administrative Tribunal and therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopalaiah Vs. Chief Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2451; 1995(4)KarLJ570
ORDEREswara Prasad, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by one of the citizens of Doddaballapur Town, questioning the action of the first respondent - Doddaballapur Town Municipality, in converting the footpath and the main road running South to North upto T. Siddalingaiah Circle, into shopping complex. Considering the fact that the Writ Petition is filed in public interest, three more citizens of the town were impleaded as petitioners by an order dated 5.1.1993 in I.A.No. lV.2. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the road in question is a main road in the Town with existing footpaths which were in use by the general public from the year 1928. It is alleged that at the instance of the local political leaders, the authorities of the first respondent-Municipality decided to contract shops measuring 8' x 6' on either side of the road, without caring for the needs of the general public and started to construct 13 shops resulting in lessening the width of the road, which has the effect of o...
Tag this Judgment!P. Surendra Vs. Hummeera Banu
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR2537; 1995(3)KarLJ516
ORDERVishwanath, J.1. The learned Counsel for Revision petitioner is present. Learned Counsel for the respondent had filed the caveat. Heard. Admitted.2. In this Revision Petition the petitioner who is not a party to the eviction decree in H.R.C. proceedings which is being executed in Execution Case No. 4 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Munsiff & JMFC., Gundlupet has challenged the order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing I.A.No. VIII filed under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 C.P.C. by the Revision Petitioner-applicant, praying that the proceedings in Ex.No. 4 of 1995 arising out of eviction order between the decree-holder in Ex.No. 4/1995 and the Judgment debtor be stayed pending disposal of Original Suit No. 1 of 1995 on the file of the Civil Judge, Nanjangud. The learned Munsiff rejected I.A.No. VIII filed by the present applicant.3. The Revision petitioner-applicant is not a party to the H.R.C. decree which is being executed in Execution No. 4 of 1995.4. The lear...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannatha Vs. P.S. Sridhara Murthy
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1995
Reported in: ILR1995KAR3219
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides.2. The trial Court in this case has passed a decree whereunder, the appellant was directed to restore possession of the disputed premises and to pay up the arrears that are accrued at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Against that decree, the present Appeal has been filed and the decree has so far not been given effect to by virtue of the Interim Orders obtained from this Court. It also transpires that no payments have been made in satisfaction of that decree. For a variety of reasons, the Appeal has been lingering since the year 1993 and has not even come up for Admission. The respondent's learned Advocate took out an LA. pointing out the state of affairs and asking for appropriate orders whereupon, the office was directed to place the Appeal for Admission.3. The appellant's learned Advocate has argued at some length and has also drawn my attention to certain relevant portions of the record of the lower Court. This is a transact...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »