Karnataka Court March 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.
G. Padmanabha Shenoy Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2659]; ILR1996KAR1750; 1996(3)KarLJ387
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. Guidelines issued by the Government of India in terms of proviso to Regulations 19(1) of the Canara Bank Officers Services Regulations, 1979 provide that while officer employees of the Bank recruited/promoted prior to 19th of July 1969 shall retire on completion of 60 years of age, those recruited on or after the said date shall do so at the age of 58 years. The petitioner's case in the present Writ Petition is that he was recruited prior to 19th July 1969 and is therefore entitled to retire from the Bank's service only on completion of 60 years age. The Respondent-Bank, however, disputes this position and contends that the petitioner had been recruited after the crucial date and therefore is bound to retire on completion of 58 years of age. The short question that falls for determination is as to what exactly does the word 'recruited' as appearing in the guidelines aforementioned mean and when shall the petitioner be deemed to have been recruited.2. A few f...
St. Marina's Social Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs. Commissioner for P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1932; 1996(3)KarLJ488
ORDER1. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order bearing No. C8(8) 48/88-89 dated 23.11.1988 and No. B1/3413/ 116/88-89 dated Nil, and to set these letters aside so far as the same pertains to the petitioner as well as to declare the directions contained therein to be arbitrary and illegal and grant such further relief as this Court may deem just. While filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for an interim relief staying the operation and implementation and further proceedings in pursuance thereof of those letters referred to above which have been annexed as Annexure-A and B to the Writ Petition.2. According to the petitioner the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered society catering the educational needs of vulnerable sections of people in particular and is running St. Marina's English Medium High School, Maratha Block, 65th Cross, N.R. Mohalla Extension, Mysore, as one of the institutions run by him. The petitioner's case is ...
H.N. Nanje Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1649; 1996(3)KarLJ39
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. This Petition is a public interest petition stating that it affects the people of State of Karnataka and especially the innumerable number of small land holders, agricultural labourers, household workers and small cultivators who have been granted occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act in Bangalore North Taluk and Devanahalli Taluk of Bangalore Rural District. The background leading to this petition is issue of a Notification dated 9.6.1994 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 ('Act' for short) extending Chapter VII of the Act and another Notification issued on 7.7.1994 proposing to acquire 5033 acres 36 guntas of land in Bangalore North Taluk and Devanahalli Taluk which are spread over in ten villages of Devanahalli Taluk and four villages in Bangalore North Taluk.2. The allegation made in the petition is that the first respondent has decided constructing an international airport near Devanahalli North of Bangalore No...
Vidya Jagruthi Trust Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1937; 1996(3)KarLJ203
ORDERHarinath Tilhari, J1. By this petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner has sought three reliefs (a) issuance of a writ of certiorari or other writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 1/2 September, 1989, bearing No. ED. 392 PGC 89, passed by the 1st respondent, that is, the State by its Secretary, Education Department as well as (b) for issuance of a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give the permission to the petitioner to start a English medium Primary School at Main Road, Doddaballapur, in the name and style of M.A. Beemaiah Lakshmi Devamma English Nursery and Primary School in accordance with the application of the Petitioner as well as to grant recognition.2. The petitioner which is a Trust established in 1987, with the object to start the school for primary education moved an application seeking permission to start the School. That acco...
The High Court of Karnataka Vs. Prof. P.N. Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2957; 1996(1)KarLJ397
ORDER1. The applicant, who was the accused in C.C.C. (Crl.) No. 13/1994 has made this application, praying for recalling the order of this Court dated 19th January, 1996 by accepting his unconditional apology, submitted along with this application and to drop the matter. 2. By the order dated 19th January, 1996, this Court held the applicant guilty of criminal contempt of Court. The apology tendered by the applicant at that time was rejected and he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. 3. Now, the applicant has filed an affidavit dated 14-2-1996 stating that he ought not to have, and should not have made the statements he made in I.A. II filed in Writ Appeal No. 2928/91. He further stated that he realized that he had no right to make such statements in whichever circumstances he was placed and that he has realised that there was a ...
Gnanajyothi Vidya SamsThe (Regd.) Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR351
ORDERH.N. Tilhari, J1. This is a petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order No. ED.592. SES.92, dated 10.7.1992, Annexure-J. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to be issued to respondent No. 1 to recognise the school run by the petitioner-institution as a Grant-in-Aid School with retrospective effects from 8.7.1985 including the consequential benefits viz., arrears of Grant-in-Aid from 8.7.1985 till date. The petitioner has further prayed for grant of any further relief as this Court deems fit.2. The petitioner's case is that petitioner is an educational institution registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and it was so registered on 27.10.1980. It has been asserted that the object of the petitioner's society has been to run educational institutions in Hiriyur Taluk. No doubt the petitioner has stated that the institution is managed by SC/ST Managements for the uplifting o...
C.M. Sameer Khan Vs. Bangalore Institute of Technology and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR973; 1997(2)KarLJ26
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J1. By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought the writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction to quash Annexure-A issued by the respondents bearing Memo No. DTE 38 ACM (1) 92 dated 2.3.1993, issued by the Director of Technical Education, Bangalore, to the Petitioner cancelling the Petitioner's admission in First Year B.E. Degree Course in Bangalore Institute of Technology as the Petitioner has not been eligible to allotment of seat under C category as investigated by the Director of Backward Classes and Minorities, Bangalore (Respondent No. 2) and prayed for the grant of such other reliefs the Court may deem fit.Petitioner also claimed interim relief; and prayed that the order impugned in this Writ Petition its implementation be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of this Writ Petition.2. The Petitioner's case is as follows :That the Petitioner was a Muslim candidate coming under C-category as per Government Order SWL EE BCA 86 dated 13.10.1986. That his ...
Smt. S.V. Kunhima Vs. B.N. Viswanath
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1853; 1996(2)KarLJ726
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J.1. Although this Petition is listed for admission, the same is heard for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides.2. The Revision Petitioners are the tenants/respondents in HRC No. 10791/1991 on the file of the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. The respondent in this revision is the landlord-petitioner in the said HRC Case. The parties to these proceedings are hereinafter referred to with reference to their status in the original proceedings.3. This Revision Petition, filed under Section 60(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, for short 'the Act', is directed against the order dated June 30, 1995, passed by the XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, in HRC No. 10791/1991 directing the eviction of the respondents under Section 21(1)(c) of the Act.4. The petitioner instituted an eviction petition against the respondents under Section 21(1)(b) & (c) of the...
Baburao Ganpatro Tirmalle Vs. Bhimappa Venkappa Kandakur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-06-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1565; 1996(2)KarLJ32
1. This is a proceeding initiated by the landlord under Section 21(1)(j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The application was filed on 22.6.1981. The premises is a non-residential building. The landlord wanted to demolish the premises and put up a new structure and he offered to give the tenant the ground floor of an equal extent occupied by him after reconstruction. The tenant disputed the genuineness of the claim made by the landlord. He also pleaded that the landlord is in the habit of evicting the tenant, demolishing the structures and not putting up any other building in the same premises. He cited an earlier proceeding initiated by the landlord as H.R.C. No. 30/69 under Section 21(1)(h) & (j) claiming for possession of the premises for self-occupation after demolition and reconstruction. He alleged that the landlord had taken possession of the premises in June, 1978, but he never demolished the structure nor did he put up any construction. This, according to him, is an inst...
A.D. Narayanappa and anr. Vs. Muniyappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-05-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR206; 1997(1)KarLJ182
J. Eswara Prasad, J.1. Plaintiffs in C.S.No. 379/1980 in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Kolar are the appellants. They filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with their possession.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants, contending that the plaint schedule property was sold to the minor son of the 1st defendant by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 3.1.1978 and that the appellants have no title to the suit property and that the 1st respondent is in possession from the date of the sale. The defendants contended that the suit is filed in order to defeat the rights of the minor son of the 1st respondent.3. The Trial Court disallowed the claim for declaration of title, but decreed the suit in part by granting permanent injunction, restraining the respondents, holding that the appellants are in possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of the suit. On appeal by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »