Karnataka Court February 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.
V.M. Govindaswamy by Lrs. Vs. Shimoga City Municipal Council, Shimoga
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2516; 1996(3)KarLJ324
J. Eswara Prasad, J.1. The appellant filed O.S.206/83 in the Court of the Munsiff, Shimoga for declaration, that the respondent - Municipality has no right to demand development, betterment or layout charges from the appellant in respect of the suit schedule property and for a permanent injunction. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the layout charges were due from the appellant and that the suit is barred under Section 150(4) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short). The Trial Court held that the suit isbarred under Section 150(4) of the Act and dismissed suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, in R.S.No.6/88, the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Section 150(4) of the Act is not a bar and the Civil Court has the jurisdiction and the suit is maintainable, in view of the findings that the provisions of law were not complied wit...
Ashok Iyer Vs. the Pre-university Education Board and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2769; 1996(5)KarLJ563
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard petitioner's learned Advocate. Heard learned Government Advocate. The petitioner was undoubtedly a bright student and a perusal of the earlier order passed by me will indicate that this Court had gone into two aspects of the matter the first of them being that the petitioner has pointed out that the malpractice that is alleged is in relation only to the Sanskrit paper and that the marks obtained by him in this paper are of no consequences as far as his attempt to secure admission for professional courses and that therefore, it would be unlikely that the petitioner would indulge in any malpractice in regard to this subject. The second point raised by him was that if the records were to be scrutinised it would be found that he has secured 70% in the S.S.L.C. examination and that therefore, he is not one of the student who even need to indulge, in malpractice for purposes of getting through. These circumstances were once strongly pleaded by the petitioner at...
Dr. Annapurna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-02-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1166; 1996(2)KarLJ226
ORDERSaldanha, J. 1. I have heard the learned Advocates representing the petitioners as also the learned Government Advocates. A clear cut point of law arises in these Petitions which requires to be set down more so for the guidance in all future situations. Often times, students approach the Court on the ground that they have wrongly been deprived of admission and by the time the Court orders are passed, particularly in professional courses, it is no longer possible to admit or accommodate the students in that year's batch as there are several requirements such as attendance, practical training etc., which cannot be by passed. It is therefore customary for the Court to direct that the students in question should be accommodated in the following year and the authorities carry out these directions in the next academic year. It is however necessary to very clearly specify when such directions are issued that if the Court considers it incumbent that the students must be accommodated for t...
Special Officer and Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vanivil ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-01-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR660; 1996(2)KarLJ53; (1996)IILLJ423Kant
M.L. Pendse, C.J.1. These four appeals are directed against judgment dated January 10th, 1992, delivered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 12586 of 1985 and 14335 of 1987. As the issues raised in these four appeals are identical, it is convenient to dispose of all the appeals by this judgment. The facts, which gave rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows : Vanivilas Co-operative Sugar Factory is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, and is engaged in the manufacture of sugar, running a distillery and other incidental activities. The Factory was managed by the Board of Directors as contemplated under the Act and the rules and the State Government held majority of shares of the society. The Government of Karnataka and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies exercise the control over the management and affairs of the society. The factory had employed more than 600 workmen and out of them, 338 were permanent, while 312 were...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›