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.
Smt. Saroja Shivakumar Vs. State Bank of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2655; 1996(6)KarLJ384
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. It is now well settled law that a public authority particularly in its dealings with its employees is required to act fairly but the time has come to amplify that requirement by specifically adding on one more dimension namely the duty to act humanely. Normally, this requirement would have been considered to be implicit in the former but experience has shown that Institutions often act with a degree of rigidity and severity by insisting on technical and strict compliance with the rules which is construed as fair treatment in so far as the letter of the law is observed but this unfortunately falls short of the requirement in so far as when dealing with human beings, the special factors and circumstances, many of which are situational and which are inter-twined with the facts of the case, cannot either be dissected or separated in the process of decision making. This very important aspect has been directly thrown up in the present case which involves a few other ...
M/S. Chandrika Enterprise Vs. G. Vittalla Rao
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant214; ILR1996KAR1998; 1996(1)KarLJ461
ORDER1. These are landlord's revision petitions against a common order dated 30-9-1988 in H.R.C. Nos. 191/84 and 193/84 and three other cases which had been filed by the petitioner under Section 21(1)(h) and (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (here in afterwards referred to as 'the Act') praying for eviction of the respondents from the petition schedule property namely portions of the premises bearing No. 5 (old No. 16/3) situated in II Cross, Ramkrishnapuram, Bangalore. By the said common order, the trial Judge dismissed all the eviction petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed these revision petitions. Since the landlords are common in these petitions and the property is different portions of the same premises in the two petitions, and common evidence has been recorded by the trial Court relating to all the five petitions in H.R.C. No. 191/84, and all the petitions have been disposed of by a common order by the trial Court, a common order is...
Smt. Arathi, W/O Laxmikanth A. Bhat and Vs. (Nil)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC491; ILR1996KAR2091; 1996(2)KarLJ640
G.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. The appellants presented a petition before the Family Court under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) seeking divorce.2. The provisions of Section 13-B are set out below:-'13-B: Divorce by mutual consent:-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district Court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in Sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdr...
Mallikarjuna Swamy and ors. Vs. Bangalore University and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2455; 1996(5)KarLJ637
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and the learned Advocate who represents the University at considerable length. In this case, I have taken the unusual precaution of looking at the question papers that were seized from each of the students as also their answer papers. The facts are very unusual in so far as these students who are appearing for the B.D.S. examination are alleged to have written the names of certain drugs which were the answers to the first part of each question on the question paper itself and it is the case of the University that it is on this basis that they have answered not only this question but more elaborate ones that follow. The petitioners were called for an enquiry which was virtually conducted piece-meal after a long period of about eight months and it is their grievance that the Malpractices Committee in such cases must hold an enquiry, expeditiously. I completely share that view and this Court has had occasion to elabor...
M. Venkataramaiah and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-17-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2879; 1996(5)KarLJ579
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.In WP No. 45165 of 1995 with WP 45342 of 1995; WP No. 39284-307 of 1995; WP Nos. 1652 & 1653 of 1996; WP Nos. 39988 to 40024 of 1993; WP Nos. 40559-573 of 1995; WP Nos. 459 of 1996; WP Nos. 40685 to 40692 of 1995; WP Nos. 40741-42 of 1995; WP Nos. 40882-887 of 1995; WP No. 41089 of 1,995; WP Nos. 41329-333 of 1995; WP Nos. 41337 to 342 of 1995; WP Nos. 41566-571 of 1995; WP Nos. 41906-927 of 1995; WP No. 42361 of 1995; WP Nos. 42567-569 of 1995; WP No. 42659-671 of 1995; WP Nos. 42702-714 of 1995; WP Nos. 42884-897 of 1995; WP Nos. 43358 of 1995; WP Nos. 43394-396 of 1995; WP Nos. 44214-216 of 1995; WP No. 44524 of 1995; WP No. 44664 of 1995.1. Petitioners are retail vendors in Indian liquor holding licences either in Form CL - 2 or CL - 9 as prescribed under the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter in short, 'the Rules') having their licensed premises situated in Bangalore Rural District.2. Their grievance is that though k...
Krishnappa Vs. Kanikaraj
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR969
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J. 1. This is plaintiff's Revision Petition. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a certain amount with costs and interest. An on demand promissory note and consideration receipt dated 8.12.1987 agreeing to repay the sum with interest was also executed by the defendants. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff fairly conceded that the on demand promissory note was not sufficiently stamped. The Trial Court held that the present suit was not based on the original cause of action but on the promissory note and since the promissory note was not sufficiently stamped dismissed the suit. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Srivatsa submitted that while it is not possible to place any reliance on the promissory note since it is insufficiently stamped, reliance can be placed on the acknowledgment of debt with respect to the consideration receipt dat...
K.M. Sarpabhushana Swamy Vs. Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bellary a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2409; 1996(3)KarLJ331; (1997)IILLJ316Kant
ORDER1. The petitioner was working as a Selection Grade Lecturer in the Veerasaiva College at Bellary run by Veerasaiva Vidya Vardhaka Sangha, Bellary. On the basis of certain allegations of misconduct made against him, the employer - Institution terminated his services by an order dated July 22, 1993. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bellary, who came to the conclusion that the order of termination had been passed without framing proper charges against the petitioner. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order of termination by its order dated April 17, 1995 and after framing the requisite charges against the petitioner, directed the respondent - Institution to lead evidence. The charges framed against the petitioner were as under :'1. That on July 31, 1991 you picked up the quarrel with one Rajashekar Neeramanvi, who was working as a Reader and Head of the Department of Geology in Veerasaiva College at Bellary. You also threat...
Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Another Vs. Indian Alum ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR375; 1996(41)KarLJ295
M.L. Pendse, C.J.1. These appeals are directed against common judgment dated January 28, 1992, delivered by the learned single Judge in Writ Petitions Nos. 16382 to 16385 of 1998. The petitions were filed before the learned single Judge to challenge the validity of item 16-B of the Schedule to the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979. The respondent filed separate petitions in respect of assessment orders for the years ending December 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. At the hearing before the learned single Judge, various contentions raised in the petitions were given up and the only controversy required to be determined was levy of tax on furnace oil under entry 11 of the Schedule to the Act. The learned single Judge held that the furnace oil is not liable to levy of tax under entry 11. The learned single Judge also quashed the penalties imposed by the assessing authorities by holding that entry 16-B, the constitutional validity of ...
Shantaveerappa Vs. Gangaram Hemajeppa Kalal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR210; 1996(3)KarLJ338
A.B. Murgod, J.1. The appellant is the owner of the residential premises in the village called Akki-Alur in Hangal Taluk. Plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. He is the owner of residential premises bearing NO. TPC 550 of Akki-Alur in Hangal Taluk. One Gangaram Hemajappa Kalal was the original tenant under the appellant and he died during the pendency of the proceedings and his Legal Representatives are brought on record and they are the respondents. The appellant issued quit notice under Section 111 Transfer of property Act and ultimately terminated the lease and Suit for ejectment of the tenant therein was filed in O.S. No. 34 of 1970 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Nangal. The appellant incidentally mentioned that the premises were required for his bonafide use.2. The respondent-tenant contested the Suit before the learned Munsiff, Hangal, challenging the validity of the termination of the lease as also the quantum of rent. Respondent also traversed the allegation that ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gogte Minerals
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2199; [1997]225ITR60(KAR); [1997]225ITR60(Karn); 1996(41)KarLJ36
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. Two questions have been referred for our opinion in this reference arising under s. 256(1) of the IT Act and the said questions are as follows : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the guarantee commission paid by the assessee is an admissible revenue expenditure (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the screening plant and electrical installations used in mining ?' 2. In respect of this very assessee in another reference, we have answered an identical question as has been referred to us as Question No. 1 in ITRC No. 162/1993, disposed of on 10th Jan., 1996 [reported as CIT vs. Gogte Minerals. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the question referred to us in this case also similarly. 3. Argument in regard to the second question ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »