Karnataka Court February 1996 Judgments
C. Naganna Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant48; 1997(1)KarLJ665
ORDER1. By this petition the petitioner has prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned rules published vide, Notification No. ED 33 TA SE VI 92, dated 10-3-1993, copy of which is Annexure-A to the writ petition and to grant such further reliefs as this Court deems fit.2. Annexure-A to the petition is the notification publishing the Rules made by the Government in exercise of its powers under S. 14(1) of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, hereinafter described as the Act 37 of 1984. The petitioner claims himself to be an academician, who have been espousing the cause of the students and alleges that he espouses the cause of students who cannot raise their voice of their own for want of funds or for lack of proper counselling and information. The petitioner has filed this petition as per allegations in para-2, as public interest litigation. Para-2 of the writ petition re...
Tag this Judgment!Shri D. Anandakumar Vs. Indian Airlines and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ528Kant
ORDER1. Petitioner, a workman, working with I st respondent, is before this Court, inter alia questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by 2nd respondent in No. MAA:CM: ADMN: 7607 dated July 12115, 1986, reducing two increments with cumulative effect from i August 1, 1986 in respect of charge memo dated s May 4,1984. 2. While working with Ist respondent, a 10 'memo of allegation' and a charge memo was served on the petitioner alleging certain irreguirities which would come within the meaning of the expression 'Misconduet'.By his reply, petitioner had denied the allegations 15 made in 'Memo of allegations' and the 'charge memo'. A detailed enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer as prescribed in the standing orders. Report alongwith his findings had been submitted to the disciplinary authority by Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority after reappreciation of entire evidence on record and after a thorough reassessment of the enquiry report and findings therein, pr...
Tag this Judgment!Papanna Vs. Nagachari and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant256; ILR1996KAR1271; 1996(2)KarLJ74
ORDER1. I heard the learned counsel for the respondent also.2. This is a defendant's revision against the order of the trial Court granting police protection to the plaintiff to enforce the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court.3. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction and along with the suit, plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction, which after contest, was granted by the trial Court on 3-7-1992. The defendant filed M.A. No. 95/92 against the above order. It was also dismissed on 20-11-1993.4. Thereafter, alleging that the defendant is taking law into his own hands and attempting to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff to the property, plaintiff lodged a complaint before the concerned police. But, the police failed to take any action against them and it is alleged that the defendant may dispossess the plaintiff at any time from the suit property. Accordingly, he filed an application under S. 151, C.P.C. for an order from the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Puttappa Vs. Ramappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant257; ILR1996KAR1443; 1996(2)KarLJ70
ORDER1. I do not think that any interference is called for with the order of the lower Court.2. In this revision by the plaintiff, he is challenging the order of the trial Court which rejected the application for the issuance of a commission to find out as to who is in possession of the plaint schedule property. The suit is for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant contends that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff filed an application for issuance of a commission under 0. 26 of C.P.C. to find out as to who is in possession of the property which was rejected by the lower Court. Plaintiff has challenged the same.3. I think, the lower Court is right that a Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out as to who is in possession of the property. Under O.26, C.P.C., a Commissioner can be appointed to make local investigation to investigate the facts or other ...
Tag this Judgment!Nath Steel and Non-ferrous Re-rolling Mills and Another Vs. Additional ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: [1997]104STC118(Kar)
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. These appeals are directed against an order of the revisional authority dated October 15, 1993 passed under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. On September 4, 1990, vehicle lorry bearing No. TCE 9505 was checked at the Tumkur Road Sales Tax Check-post (Inward). The check-post authority found that the documents in regard to the following two consignments were not in order : (a) Consignment of 56 bales of cotton yarn belonging to the appellant in STA No. 8 of 1994. The pro forma Invoice dated September 1, 1990 tendered by the driver showed the appellant as the consignor and consignee and the value of the consignment as Rs. 22,176 and the transportation was by way of stock transfer from Bombay to Bangalore. Another documents accompanying the said consignment (that is bill No. 180 dated July 13, 1990) under which the appellant had purchased the goods showed the value of 98 bales as Rs. 3,84,650 and corresponding value for 56 ba...
Tag this Judgment!Spun Silk Mills Vs. Parthasarathy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: [1997(75)FLR71]; ILR1996KAR2497; 1996(5)KarLJ487
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. These Writ Petitions are taken up with consent of the parties. Notice to R-21 dispensed with.2. The petitioner is a Corporation owned by the Government of Karnataka. According to petitioner, the respondents before this Courtrequested the petitioner-Management to purchase consumer durables on instalment basis. The petitioner had discussion with M/s. Nagarjuna Investment Trust Ltd, Hyderabad which is a private agency in respect of extension of finance to the employees under hire purchase scheme for purchase of consumer durables. The said Company came forward to extend the facilities. The Management agreed to remit the amount after recovering from the employees in instalments to the investment Corporation. The Management put up a notice on the Notice Board dated 18/19.7.1990 informing the employees to submit their applications for availing the benefit on or before 20.7.1990. About 82 employees at Channapatna came forward to avail the benefit of the scheme and s...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P.V. Lakshmanan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ107; ILR1996KAR2224; 1996(3)KarLJ475
Mohamed Anwar, J. 1. This appeal by the Insurer, United India Insurance Company Limited, is filed against the Judgment and Award dated 8th August, 1990 of the M.A.C.T. II, Bangalore Rural District, made in M.V.C.No. 342/87 disposed of on its file holding the appellant also liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 46,000/- to respondent No. 1-Claimant jointly and severally with respondent No. 2, owner of the offending car bearing Regn. No. KLN 1176.2. The arguments of learned counsel on both sides are heard.3. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') filed his petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 ('the Act' for short) before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident occurred on 25.2.1987 on Mysore-Bangalore road due to negligent driving of the said car bearing Regn.No. 1176 by its driver, in which car he was travelling as a passenger. Appellant was made respondent No. 1 in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Veeresh Vs. Channaveerappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR95
J. Eswara Prasad, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 100/1984 in the Court of the Principal Munsiff at Gadag is the appellant. The suit is filed by the respondents for damages of Rs. 4,075/- with interest and for costs, alleging that the appellant filed a criminal complaint against the respondents with a motive to evict them from the premises and caused damage to their reputation and loss of business. The suit was resisted by the appellant contending that he filed a genuine complaint against the respondents as they wrongfully confined him and caused mischief which ended in the acquittal of the respondents and that there is no case for grant of damages.2. The Trial Court held that the respondents are entitled to damages and granted a decree for damages in a sum of Rs. 2,000. The appellant preferred the appeal before the Civil Judge, Gadag, In R.A, No. 23/1988 against the decree of the Trial Court. The appeal was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, confirming the decree of the Trial Court....
Tag this Judgment!High Court of Karnataka Vs. Chinnen Das and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)898; ILR1997KAR418
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This is a contempt proceeding that has been instituted suo motu against four respondents. The respondents-1, 2 and 3 are the publisher, Printer and Reporter respectively of the Economic Times, Bangalore Edition, dated 7.11.1996 and the 4th respondent is Captain T.S. Gopaiakrishna, the former Treasurer of the Bangalore Stock Exchange. Briefly stated, the charges against the four respondents are that in the issue of the Economic Times dated 7.11.1996, a prominent news report was published under the head 'Ex-BGSE official to move High Court against Judge's alleged criminal contempt'. The news report referred to a judgment delivered by a sitting Judge of this Court Justice M.P. Chinnappa in certain criminal proceedings on 15.4.1996. The 4th respondent is supposed to have applied to the Advocate General of the State of Karnataka for sanction to prosecute Justice M.P. Chinnappa for criminal contempt on certain grounds interalia that 'the Hon'ble Justice made false stateme...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturba Hospital Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Ass ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2871
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. For the assessment period 1987-88, the sales tax authorities brought to tax the turnover relating to orthetics, prosthetics and rehabilitation aids on the ground that the benefit of the notification issued by the Government under section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act exempting the tax payable under the Act in respect of artificial limbs could not be extended to the petitioner. All that the assessing authority stated was that the exemption is applicable to prosthetics and not to orthetics or rehabilitation aids. The matter was carried in appeal. The appellate authority referred to the etymological meaning of the expressions 'orthetics', 'prosthetics' and rehabilitation aids' and concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to such relief. The matter was carried in second appeal, without any success. The Tribunal also adopted the dictionary meaning of the expressions used and dismissed the appeal.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the object...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »