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.
State of Karnataka Vs. P. Siddalingappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1641; 1996(3)KarLJ522
Rajendra Babu J.1. The first respondent was appointed by the Commissioner of the Corporation of City of Bangalore - second respondent to the post of Deputy Commissioner in the establishment of the second respondent. Government made an order on 27.6.1992 appointing third respondent as Deputy Commissioner to the Bangalore City Corporation. The first respondent challenged the validity of this appointment by contending that under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter, for short, referred to as the Act) the respondent No. 3 could not be appointed by filing a Writ Petition out of which this Appeal arises.2. It appears, the first respondent who was a Revenue Officer was promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee on officiating basis in the vacancy arising on the retirement of one A. Shankarappa. The proposals were sent by the Commissioner to the Government for approval of the appointment. However, in anticipat...
B. Venkateshallu Vs. Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3462; 1996(7)KarLJ607
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Petitioner and the third respondent are members of Muka Gram Panchayat in Bellary Taluk, having been elected on 22.2.1994. While holding such office as member of the Gram Panchayat, the third respondent contested the elections for the Bellary Taluk Panchayat, and was selected as a member. The names of members elected to the said Taluk Panchayat were notified on 31.3.1995 under Section 133 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('Act' for short). The first meeting of the Bellary Taluk Panchayat was held on 4.5.1995. The third Respondent thereafter submitted his resignation in regard to the seat held by him in Muka Gram Panchayat on 6.5.1995.2. The petitioner contends that if the third Respondent wanted to be a member of the Taluk Panchayat, he ought to have complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 128(2) of the Act by resigning his seat in the Village Panchayat within 15 days from 31.3.1995 which was the date of notification under Section 133 of th...
H.N. Srinivasa Babu Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1794; 1996(3)KarLJ31
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J 1. This petition is directed against the notification issued by the respondent No. 2, to elect the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Halaganahalli Grama Panchayat. The elections for these posts were held during the month of December, 1993. However, for one or other reason, Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha could not be elected. The Deputy Commissioner, purporting to exercise the powers under Section 47 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, appointed several officers of the Government to act as administrators of several panchayats including Halaganahalli Grama Panchayat. Subsequently, by an order made on 19.12.1994, which is impugned herein, the Deputy Commissioner called upon the concerned panchayat to elect Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. It is now contended that the Deputy Commissioner having appointed Administrator in terms of Section 8 of the said Act, the members of the panchayat ceased to be members thereof, and consequently when panchayat itself ceased to exist, the o...
The High Court of Karnataka Vs. Prof. P.N. Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1747; ILR1996KAR685; 1996(2)KarLJ137
ORDER1. These contempt proceedings arise out of the suo motu action taken by this Court, initiating Criminal Contempt Proceedings against the accused, by the order dated 26-10-1994 in I.A. II in Writ Appeal No. 2928/1991. While directing the posting of I.A. II for orders after the disposal of the Contempt Proceedings, this Court directed initiation of Criminal Contempt Proceedings against the appellant. The Court was of the view that the statement of facts contained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the application in I.A. II prima facie amounts to Contempt of Court. The Government Advocate was directed to apppear, assist and conduct the proceedings against the accused. The accused was directed to show cause as to why Criminal Contempt Proceedings should not be initiated. He was granted two weeks time for filing his reply. 2. The accused filed his reply and sought for adjourning the proceedings to some date in December, 1994. The proceedings were adjourned to 21-11-1994 by the order dated 7-...
Prabhu Sales Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR592
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. Petitioner is the re-distributor stockist for M/s Lipton India Ltd., the manufacturer of fruit drinks in Tetra Pack under the brand name 'Tree Top'. Petitioner is registered as a dealer both under Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the State Act') and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Central Act'). Manufacturer effects sale of 'Tree Top' to the petitioner after charging Sales Tax at 10% on the first sale under Entry F8(1) of the second schedule of Karnataka Sales Tax Act.2. In order to understand the contention of the parties, it is necessary to give briefly the legislative history of this entry in the schedule and to refer to some of its salient points. As indicated by the petitioner, item in question was liable to be taxed under Entry F.8(1) of the schedule to the Act, since it answers the description contained in the said Entry.3. With effect from 1.4.1986 and upto 31.8.1988, this item was described in Entry 98 in the second schedule as follow...
Srinivasa Ramachander Vs. Central Machine Tool Institute
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1209
Dattu, J. 1. Petitioner who was working as Senior Administrative Officer in the first respondent Institute, is before this Court inter alia questioning the correctness or otherwise of the action of the Institute in discharging the petitioner from service with effect from 17.10.1991 (afternoon) in accordance with letter No.02(1758)/91 dated 17.10.1991 of the Director, Central Machine Tool Institute, Bangalore.2. Facts in nutshell are : Petitioner was selected for appointment as 'Senior Administrative Officer' in the 1st respondent - Institute, on certain terms and conditions. Selection for appointment was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent-Institute by its letter dated 18th September, 1989. Salient features of this appointment were, that duration of appointment was temporary, but likely to be continued and the period of probation would be for a period of two years initially which may be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the Institute and it was also made known in ...
Sandeep Singh Vs. University of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1695; 1996(3)KarLJ151
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is a group of Writ Petitions which have been filed against orders passed by the Mysore University pursuant to certain charges levelled against the petitioners. The University Authorities had contended that in the course of the M.B.B.S. examination held in January 1992, that the petitioners had committed pertain malpractices which basically consisted of a charge that certain answer books had been substituted. It was alleged against the petitioners that the answer books in question did not pertain to the ones that had been distributed for that particular examination and it is the case of the authorities that those answer books had somehow been obtained from outside and answers written on them and that they had thereafter been fastened on to the original answer books. Despite on investigation, it was not possible for the University to exactly find out how malpractice had occurred and the only evidence available was from certain intrinsic circumstances which I...
Ravi Narayan and ors. Vs. B.W.S.S.B.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3063; 1996(7)KarLJ270
ORDERM.B. Vishwanath, J.1. Heard both Counsel. 2. In these Writ Petitions filed by five petitioners they have prayed that each is entitled to free allowance of 25,000 litres of water in view of Regulation 36 of the Bangalore Water Supply Regulations 1966, which says that:'When the premises, enumerated in Clauses (a) to (j) are assessed to property tax by the CorporationConsumptionRate per 1,000 liters1. Up to 25,000 litersFree, so far as the consumer is concerned. But theCorporation of the City of Bangalore have to bear the cost of water supplywith regard to free allowance in respect of each domestic connection at aminimum demand of Rs.50/- per connection per month.2. Above 25,000 liters up to 50,000 liters Rs.0.40 paise per 1,000 liters3. Above 50,000 liters up to 75,000 liters Rs.0.75 paise per 1,000 liters4. Above 75,000 liters up to 1,00,000 liters Rs.1.25 paise per 1,000 liters5. Above 1,00,000 liters Rs.1.75 paise per 1,OO0 liters(The calculations will be rounded of to the neares...
Smt. Ammajamma Vs. Smt. Mahadevamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3499; 1996(6)KarLJ139
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal arising out and from Judgment and decree dated September 23rd 1985, delivered by the District Judge, Tumkur (Sri. P.S. Gundawade), allowing the defendants' First Regular Civil Appeal - R.A.No.4/1974, from the Judgment and decree dated 16.3.1974, delivered by Sri, K.P. Kempegowda, Additional Civil Judge, in Original R.A.No. 32/71, setting aside the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and dismissing the plaintiff - appellant's Original Suit - No. O.S. 32/71, at the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Tumkur.2. The plaintiff - appellant filed the suit for decree for declaration declaring that the plaintiff 4s entitled to exercise the right of preemption, i.e., right of preferential acquisition of suit property under Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act, i.e., Act No. 30 of 56, in respect of one half share in the suit schedule properties and for further direction to defendant No. 2, that is, Respondent No. 2, to deliver the possession...
Bhojaraja Vs. State Bank of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1592; 1996(2)KarLJ630
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner calls in question two orders one dated 16th December, 1991 and the other 23rd January, 1992. By the first order the petitioner has suffered a punishment of removal from service whereas by the 2nd his appeal preferred against the said order has been dismissed.2. The facts in brief may be stated first.3. The petitioner was working as Junior Management Grade Scale-I, at Gouribidanur Branch of the Respondent Bank. He was charged with misconduct in terms of a chargesheet dated 25th of October, 1990 ANNEXURE-B, to the Writ Petition. The chargesheet enumerated five distinct charges based on different transactions that took place at different points of time, which according to the Respondent-Bank tantamounted to commission of misconduct on his part. The petitioner was asked to file his reply in which the petitioner pleaded riot guilty and claimed a detailed enquiry into the matter. In the course of the enquiry proceedings howeve...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »