Karnataka Court February 1996 Judgments
Harischandra Hegde Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1077; 1996(6)KarLJ227
Pendse, C.J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals the question which falls for determination is, whether the provisions of Section 51 of Transfer of Property Act are attracted when the transaction of alienation is found to be void in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The facts leading to filing of Appeal No. 1045 of 1992 are set-out hereinafter to appreciate the contentions urged at the Bar,On May 1, 1961 an area of two acres of land out of Survey Number 134/110 situated at Hosudi village in Taluk and District Shimoga was granted in favour of Smt. Gangamma under Mysore Land Revenue Rules. The grant was on condition that the grantee shall not alienate the land for a duration of fifteen years from the date of grant. The grant prescribed that in case the grantee commits breach of the condition, the Government will be entitled to resume the land. Inspite of t...
Tag this Judgment!Association of Managements of Aided Engineering Colleges in Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1466; 1996(2)KarLJ619
ORDERBharuka, J. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to approve the admissions of the students admitted in the petitioner Colleges i.e., B.M.S. College of Engineering, Bangalore (in short, 'the first college'), National Institute of Engineering, Mysore(in short, 'the second college), Malnad Engineering College, Hassan (in short, 'the third college') and P.E.S. College of Engineering (in short, 'the fourth college) during the academic year 1994-95 in different courses of Bachelor of Engineering Degree. These Colleges are affiliated to either of the two respondent Universities.2. Since in the present and several other Writ Petitions of the like nature involved ascertainment of certain facts, like the intake capacity of the Colleges and the actual admissions made therein through the CET Cell and by the managements as also some other connected matters, it was found convenient to get a report on these aspects from the Ed...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1136
ORDERBharuka. J.1. The sole Question in these Writ Petitions is as to whether the contract entered into by the petitioner with various Re-rolling Mills for conversion of M.S. Semis like blooms and billets, etc. into to steel to the extent it was allowed to be appropriated by the latter against conversion charges, amounts to a contract of sale of goods making in Constitutionally permissible on the part of the State Legislature, and, consequentially, the functionaries under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the act') to levy tax under the provisions of the Act on the said transactions.2. These Writ Petitions which pertain to the assessment years 1985-86 to 1991-92 had originally been filed against the show cause notices issued under Section 12A of the Act whereby the respondent Assessing Authority had initiated re-assessment proceedings under Section 12A of the Act in order to bring the transactions in question to levy of tax under the Act since according to him there was esc...
Tag this Judgment!KLE Society's College of Pharmacy Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2507; 1996(6)KarLJ622
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard petitioner's learned Advocate and learned Government Advocate.2. This is a case in which the petitioner's learned Advocate has raised a very strong grievance with regard to the state of affairs that was in existence around 31.7.1995. The petitioner is a well established institution and we are concerned with the admission to the B. Pharma course conducted by the petitioners. They were eligible to admit 90 students for the current academic year. But, having regard to the fact that this is a course for which there is not all that much of demand, only 71 applications were received by the petitioner's institution. What had happened was, that the Government in keeping with the rules framed by them for the purpose of centralising the admissions had issued the necessary notices in the press in relation to the common entrance test, which is as early as on 11.5.1995. The petitioner has produced the copy of this prominent announcement in the press at Annexure-A to t...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. S. Kumuda Vs. Bangalore University and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2787; 1996(6)KarLJ19
ORDERH.N. Tilhari, J.1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner who had been provisionally registered for Ph.D. Course in 'Child Psychology' seeking direction to the respondents to accept the thesis prepared by her on the subject 'An Experimental Study on the role of Message Inadequacy in Causing Communication Failure in children' when it was submitted. The petitioner has also sought for the issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the communication of the respondents bearing No. Aca V/Ph.D/Regn/ Psy/88-89 dated 6th July 1989. The petitioner has also sought a direction to complete, all formalities connected with Ph.D. examinations and such other reliefs as the Court may deemed fit.2. The petitioner's case, as per allegations made in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner after having completed the Master's Degree in Home Science with specialisation in 'Child Development' applied fo...
Tag this Judgment!The North Coorg Higher Education Society Vs. State of Karnataka and An ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Kant301; 1996(7)KarLJ75
ORDER1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer for issue of writ of mandamus or similar writ, order, or direction to the respondents directing the respondents to accord permanent recognition to the petitioner's Institution as well as to afford financial assistance and grant-in-aid as provided in the Grant-in-aid Code for Primary Schools.2. The facts of the case in brief are, that according to the petitioner, the petitioner-Institution was started in the year 1981-82, after having obtained the necessary permission. According to petitioner's case, the petitioner's Institution imparted education from 1st Standard to VII Standard in Kannada medium. In para-3 of the petition, it has been stated that in column-13 of the prescribed form, the petitioner had mentioned that petitioner will continue to run the school at its own until the grant is sanctioned by the Government and this statement was made in Column-13 keeping in view the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Basavanneppa Adiveappa Sharanappanavar Vs. Rudrawwa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2209; 1996(3)KarLJ378
J. Eswara Prasad, J. 1. Defendants 1 & 2 in O.S.142/1989 before the Court of Munsiff, Bailahongal are the appellants. The first respondent filed the suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and for injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with his right therein and for mesne profits. The trial court decreed the suit and the appeal filed by the present appellants was dismissed by the Principal Civil Judge, Bailahongal, in R.A.No. 15/1991.2. The first respondent filed the suit claiming that the grandfather namely, Channabasappa, got 1/3rd share in the partition between his brothers Gadigeppa & Basavannappa and thereafter, his mother Neelawwa continued to be in possession of 1/3rd share. Further contention was that in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his mother perfected her title to the suit properties. The suit was contested by the appellants on the ground that Channabasappa was living separately from the other brothers and that he had no c...
Tag this Judgment!Aristotle College of Pharmacy Vs. Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant108; 1997(1)KarLJ611
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the communication bearing No. 37-202/91-PCI/528-30, dated 20-5-1993, issued by the Secretary, Pharmacy Council of India -- the 1st respondent vide Annexure-N and for issue of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus to the first respondent to accord approval to the Diploma Course in Pharmacy conducted by petitioner-Institution. When the petition had been filed, a prayer for interim relief had also been made. This Court vide its order dated 4-6-1997, granted the interim order of stay, staying the operation of the direction contained in Annexure-N. That interim order of stay yet continued to be in operation.I have heard Sri. S. P. Shankar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Mukund Menon V., Add). Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the Pharmacy Council-1st respondent and Smt. Premavathi, High Court Government Pleader for Respondent No. 2.2. According to th...
Tag this Judgment!Charak Pharmaceuticals Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: 2005(100)ECC263; 2004(163)ELT300(Kar)
1. Appeal admitted. Counsel for respondents waives service. By consent appeal taken on board and called out for hearing. Heard Counsel.The respondent No. 3 - Assistant Commissioner passed order of adjudication holding that the appellants are liable to pay Central Excise duty on Physician samples at the assessable value of identical goods sold through depots. The appellant challenged the order by filing appeal before respondent No. 2 - Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant also filed application for stay of enforcement of order of adjudication by recovery proceedings. The respondent No. 2 did not hear the application for stay and the same is still pending. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 3 has commenced recovery proceedings in pursuance of order of adjudication. The appellant requested the respondent No. 2 to hear stay application but the request was not granted. The appellant thereupon preferred writ petition before learned single Judge requesting that the recovery proceedings...
Tag this Judgment!Puttegowda Vs. Puttaswamygowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2156; 1996(3)KarLJ486
J. Eswara Prasad, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 32/1986 in the Court of the Munsiff, Hunsur is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession from the respondents based on the strength of Exhibit P.1-registered sale deed dated 28.1.1986. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground the they have been in long possession of the suit land for about 30 years. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the appellant failed to establish title of his vendor. The appeal filed by the present appellant in R.A.No. 31/1988 was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Hunsur.2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below having rightly found that Exhibit P.1 is proved ought to have decreed the suit when it was clearly found that the respondent have not established their right to the suit land. He further contends that the Appellate Court failed to consider the oral evidence and the Judgment ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »