Karnataka Court January 1996 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.
Suja T. Zacharia Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1309; 1996(7)KarLJ545
ORDERSaldanha, J.1. This group of Petitions pertains to nine students who had joined the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) Course and whose admissions have not been approved-of by the University on the ground that the respondent/College was permitted in the academic year 1992-93 to admit only 40 students as against which they have admitted 49.2. The University Authorities therefore refused to approve the admissions of the remaining 9 students on the ground that the College has exceeded the permissible intake. The petitioners have thereupon approached this Court because in effect the refusal to approve the admissions would have the result of cancellation of their admissions and having regard to the fact that they have already paid the fees and joined the Course, they contended that they should not be penalised for whatever errors or breaches the College Management might have committed. There is also an interesting additional aspect to this case which demonstrates an entirely different fa...
Sri Ramachandra High School and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-25-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2179; 1996(5)KarLJ692
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and the learned Government Advocate.2. The solitary grievance of the petitioners is that even though the newly started divisions are eligible for the grant of aid, that it has been wrongly denied as far as the petitioners are concerned. It is submitted that the refusal is discriminatory vis-a-vis the petitioners and that therefore, this Court should direct the respondents to make available the grant-in-aid to the newly started divisions also.3. Learned Government Advocate has stated several reasons including the fact that normally, for a prescribed period of time the newly started institutions are denied aid and secondly in this particular case, the petitioners agreed that they would be financially self-sufficient and that therefore, they may be permitted to start the divisions without aid. He also submitted that this undertaking has been given by them because they knew that the permission would not have been other...
Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Dr. H.S. Hanumanthappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR642; 1996(7)KarLJ1
Pendse, C.J.1. These three Appeals are directed against Judgment dated February 20, 1992, delivered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20377/89. Writ Appeal No. 693/1992 is preferred by the Bangalore Development Authority, while the remaining two Appeals are preferred by allottees of sites from the Bangalore Development Authority. The allottees were not parties to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. As the issue raised in all the three Appeals is common, the Appeals are disposed of by common Judgment.2. The Karnataka Legislature passed the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('the Act'), to provide for the establishment of a Development Authority for the development of the City of Bangalore and the areas adjacent thereto and for the matters connected therewith. Section 3 of the Act provides for constitution and incorporation of the Authority to be called as the Bangalore Development Authority. The Authority is a body corporate and was constituted to promote...
Tajusab Herur Vs. Regional Transport Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1289; 1996(2)KarLJ524
ORDERBharuka, J.1. In this Writ Petition, prayer is for quashing of the Demand Notice dated 16.11.1995 issued by the respondent-Regional Transport Officer, demanding Rs. 43,500/- as arrears of composite tax payable by the petitioner for the period 1.10.1994 to 31.03.1996 in respect of 8 States (hereinafter referred to as the 'contiguous States') covered by the National Permit granted to the petitioner by the State Transport Authority of Karnataka.2. The petitioner is the owner of the goods carriage bearing registration No. CTD 8492. He has, obtained a National Permit in respect of the said vehicle, which is valid upto 02.04.1999. Apart from Karnataka, i.e. the Home State, in terms of the National Permit, the petitioner was entitled to ply the vehicle in the contiguous States, namely, (1) Delhi (2) Maharashtra (3) Kerala (4) Tamilnadu (5) Gujarath (6) Rajasthan (7) Haryana and (8) Goa, on his payment of authorization fee and composite road tax for the said States. He was granted authori...
Hasanamba Education Trust (R) Vs. Mysore University
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1834; 1996(5)KarLJ728
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J. 1. Heard the petitioner's learned advocate.2. This Writ Petition has been preferred by the Management and is directed against a decision of the Mysore University, refusing to recognise the admissions of 8 students of the petitioner-College, in respect of the B.Ed Course for the academic year 1994-95.3. In the first instance, I have pointed out to the petitioner's learned advocate that it is not permissible for one Writ Petition to have been presented on behalf of the eight petitioners, each of whose cases require individual consideration. The office shall, therefore, re-number this Writ Petition as Writ Petition No. 4068-A/1995 and shall issue separate numbers in respect of the remaining seven petitioners, ending with W.P.No. 4068-H/1995. The Petitioner's learned advocate shall tender to the office the deficit Court fee in respect of the balance seven petitioners, within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, the certified copy of the orders passed in t...
Anil Kumar and ors. Vs. the Director of Technical Education in Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2766; 1996(6)KarLJ575
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. All these Writ Petitions are being disposed of through a common order because the point involved in all these cases is identical. The petitioners are students and they had joined the various professional courses, after passing the Pre-University Examination in the year 1993. It is common ground that these students had been declared eligible on the basis of their' having passed in the supplementary examination held in September 1993. In that particular year, due to certain reasons the admissions had not been completed within the prescribed time and the last date was extended twice and ultimately, it went right upto 10th January 1994. Normally, in respect of the academic year 1993-94 only those students who had passed in the examinations held prior to the commencement of that academic year would have been eligible, but in view of the delay, these petitioners having passed their examination securing the eligibility certificate were admitted to the courses in quest...
Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Manjunatha Flour Mills
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-24-1996
Reported in: 1996(7)KarLJ46
Saldanha, J.1. An unfortunate situation has arisen pursuant to an Order passed in this R.F.A when the Court had occasion to deal with IA. 1 for condonation of delay. Those facts will be recounted slightly later because they are relevant. This Court passed an order dated 28.7.95 directing the Registrar to discontinue the practice of returning papers to the Advocates after the same had been checked and various office objections noted, as a result of which the removal of objections would have to be attended to within the Court premises without the Lawyer being permitted to physically take back the records and retain them for an indefinite period of time. The raison detre for this Decision was because experience has shown that the number of Cases in which papers are properly presented along with all necessary annexures and the Court Fees, shockingly enough are less than 4%, and that therefore, in almost all Cases barring this microscopic number, thereis abnormal and heavy delay as a result...
Smt. Pillamma and Others Vs. P. Rangaraju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant330; ILR1996KAR706; 1996(1)KarLJ447
ORDER1. The defendants are the Revision Petitioners and the Revision is against the order, by which, lower Court allowed the application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The respondent herein as the plaintiff, has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 30-9-1988 against the defendants in respect of the property -- i.e., 34 guntas in Sy. No. 15/1 of Cholanayakana halli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluka. In the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for specific performance of the agreement of sale in question. In the plaint, it is alleged that there was an earlier agreement between the plaintiff and late Ramakka, whose legal representatives are the defendants on 10-3-1982 and that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property by her. That agreement could not be enforced as Ramakka died and after her death, the defendants entered into an agreement to sell the property to the plaintiff ...
Mrs. Mary Joyce Poonacha Vs. K.T. Plantations Private Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR833; 1996(1)KarLJ498
ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J.1.The Second Defendant is the Revision Petitioner. The first respondent - plaintiff filed O.S.No. 122/92 on the file of the Civil Judge's Court, Bangalore, originally against two defendants for declaration that the Sale Deed dated 16.2.1992 executed by the first defendant in favour Of the plaintiff-Company is valid and binding on her and for permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the schedule property to anybody else and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The second defendant is impleaded by making allegations against her that she is misusing her position as Private Secretary of the defendant.2. The first defendant denied execution of the document and also pleaded that the plaintiff has played fraud and no consideration has passed. During the pendency of the Suit, the third defendant got himself impleaded and f...
Nagarathna S. Murthy Vs. Padma Prakash Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR841; 1996(2)KarLJ153
ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J.1. This is a Revision by the plaintiff against an order of the Court below directing him to pay Court fee on an amount of Rs. 14 lakhs which is the sale consideration amount fixed in the Agreement of Sale.2. The suit is for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 14.05.1990 which included certain immovable property and various other related assets. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 entered into an Agreement for a total consideration of Rs.14 lakhs and that he was also put in possession of the property on the date of the Agreement. According to the allegations in the plaint, the Agreement has been complied with in respect of two properties in Sy.No. 100/2 and in Sy.No. 116/1 by respective defendants executing Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiff. Present suit is for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 14.05.1990 in respect of the schedule property in respect of which the Sale Deed has not been executed and also to direct t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »