Karnataka Court June 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.
B.K. Kollappa Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-12-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2800; 1996(6)KarLJ301
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. This Writ Petition calls in question an order dated 3rd of May 1988, passed by the Government of Karnataka and that passed by the Deputy Commissioner -- Respondent No. 2 herein dated 27th February, 1989, forfeiting in favour of the State a treasure trove comprising Gold Coins found in the land belonging to the petitioner. A few facts in the background where of the controversy has arisen may be stated first.2. The petitioner owns some landed property in village Solur, Shikaripur Taluk of Shimoga District. Certain labourers engaged by the petitioner for digging pits for planting coconut seedlings, found 31 Gold Coins, which were produced by the petitioner before the Circle Inspector, Police Station, Shikaripur. The Circle Inspector mounted a further investigation in the course whereof it was discovered that a total of 90 Gold coins and 3 Gold ingots valued at Rs. 60,000/- had been found by the labourers. He accordingly submitted a report to the Deputy Commissi...
Advocates' Association, Bangalore Vs. the Chief Minister, Government o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant18; 1997(1)KarLJ474
ORDER1. This petition is presented by the Advocates Association, Bangalore, which is a premier association of Advocates in Karnataka State (which is hereinafter referred to as the 'Association'). The petitioner-association has sought for a direction to the respondents to demolish the existing old building of the Association and to construct in its place a new building at the premises of the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore.2. Few facts which are relevant for the disposal of this petition as set out by the parties may be briefly stated as hereunder : The case of the Association is that it is a unique association in the State of Karnataka and out of about 22, 000 Advocates in the State, about 8,000 Advocates who are practising in various Courts including the High Court of Karnataka, at Bangalore, are its members and the present premises in occupation of the Association which is located at City Civil Courts Complex is a very old building constructed more than 100 years back; that it is...
Muninagaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2637; 1997(42)KarLJ129
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioner is a forest contractor. He has come up before this Court for a declaration that the contract entered into between him and the Forest Department, 'to collect, remove and dispose of 'tamarind' is not one of sale but is that of a grant of right in the nature of profit a prendre and therefore the respondents had no authority in law to collect sales tax on the amounts paid under the said contract. Prayer is also for quashing the order dated December 13, 1993 (annexure J) passed by the respondent-Deputy Conservator of Forests, whereunder he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for refunds of the amounts collected as sales tax by the Forest Department. 2. Now, some of the admitted facts. The Forests Department, on regular basis sells right to collect tamarind in specified forest areas through public auction as per the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1964 (For short 'the Forest Act') and the Rules framed thereunder. Mr. R. I. D'Sa,...
Ninge Gowda Vs. Sahadevan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-11-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2462; 1996(3)KarLJ226
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The short point that arises for determination in this proceedings centres around the question as to whether an application for amendment of a written statement should be permitted if it is demonstrated that through such an amendment, the original case made out would be sufficiently altered to the extent of virtually making out a new case and at the same time, totally nullifying the effect of admissions earlier contained in the written statement. Briefly stated, the 5th defendant to the suit, which was one for specific performance, had filed his written statement in which there was an admission to the effect that an agreement had been entered into for sale of the property in the year 1985. This was precisely the plaintiff's case and the suit for specific performance was based on this agreement and the admission on the part of defendant-5constituted material on which the plaintiff would place reliance. Subsequently, the 5th defendant presented the application for...
L.J. Prakash and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3076; 1996(6)KarLJ90
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. This judgment will dispose of W.P.15082/86 and W.P.15083/1986 as common questions of law and facts arise in these petitions.2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the Writ Petitions may be noticed. They are -Petitioners are directly recruited as First Division Clerks in the Office of Corporation of City of Bangalore on 19th November, 1975 and on 17th October, 1975 respectively. Petitioners in the Writ Petitions seem to be aggrieved mainly because of the fitment given to respondents - 3 to 6 above petitioners in the provisional seniority list of First Division Clerk prepared as on 1.1.1981 and published and circulated in the memo dated 20.6.1984. In the said list, 1st petitioner is placed at Sl.No. 47 and 2nd petitioner at Sl.No. 45 respectively, whereas respondents 3 to 6 are placed above petitioners at Sl.Nos. 3,5,7 and 25. According to the averments made in the Writ Petitions, respondents-3 to 6 had joined the services of the respondent-Corporation as Family ...
Siddegowda and ors. Vs. the District Magistrate, Mandya and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3432; 1996(7)KarLJ826
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. The No-objection Certificate issued by the 1st respondent in exercise of the power conferred on him under the provisions of the Karnataka Cinema Regulation Act, 1964, and the Karnataka Cinema Regulation Rules, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and the 'Rules') to the 2nd respondent-C. Hemanthakumar, has been challenged in both these petitions. The copy of the same has been produced as Annexure-C and D in W.P.No. 15833/94 and as Annexure-O and P in W.P.No.9582/94. Since common grievance has been made by the petitioners in these petitions, they are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 15833/1994 claim to be permanent residents of Thaggahalli Village, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District. It is their contention that the distances between their residential buildings and the site bearing' No. 123/6 of Thaggahalli village, where the 2nd respondent has proposed to put up a cinema theatre is ...
D.S. Jayaram Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2512
ORDERL. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.1. These petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders dated 17.2.96 passed by the Special J.M.F.C. (Sales Tax Bangalore in C.C.Nos.255/95 and other connected cases ordering process to the accused for the offence under Section 29(1)(g)/(a) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 (for short 'the KST Act').2. The petitioner Sri D.S. Jayaram is said to be the partner of M/ s. Vasishta Industries. Criminal Petition Nos.903/95 to 913/95 and 761/95 have been filed on behalf of Vasishta Industries whereas the rest of the petitions have been filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity.3. The Firm Vasistha Industries and Sri D.S. Jayaram are assessees under the KST Act. The respondent has filed charge-sheets against them for non-filing of monthly statements in Form No. 3 as required under Section 12(B)(1) of the KST Act, and the Rules thereunder.4. Since the petitioner in ail these cases is the same and the complaints filed by the responden...
Workmen, Manipal Power Press Vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-06-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ258Kant
Kumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The Writ Petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. The petitioner-union representing 64 workmen seeks to challenge the legal validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated December 13, 1995. The Government of Karnataka by its order dated January 10, 1983 held that an Industrial dispute exists between the petitioner and the management of Respondents 2 and 3 and made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal on the following points of dispute:'Are the 64 workmen as detailed in the Annexure appended to this Government Order working in the Manipal Power Press, Manipal represented by the Manipal Printers and Publishers Employees Association, Udupi, justified in demanding that they should also be considered as employees (Newspaper Employees) of the Manipal Publishers and Printers (P.) Ltd., Manipal, from the date of their appointments with all consequential benefits arising out of various Wage Boards recommendations and awards for journalists.If h...
Devesh Sandeep Associates and ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commiss ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1996
Reported in: 1996(3)KarLJ683; (1997)ILLJ1167Kant
ORDER1. Petitioners are before this Court, inter alia questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by Regional Provident fund Commissioner dated September 9, 1986 holding that M/s. Devesh Sandeep Associates - 1st petitioner herein, is bound to comply with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the P.F. Act') for the period from August 1, 1985 to July, 1986 in respect of employees working in the firm M/s. Devesh Sandeep Associates and Mody Sales Service, No. 23, Ulsoor Road, Bangalore.2. Brief facts are : First petitioner is a partnership firm of which petitioners 2 to 4 are partners. Main business of the firm is selling and marketing of leather cloth upholstery, wall paper and tiles. Between July 1, 1985 and June 30, 1986, the total sales of the firm has been approximately to the tune of Rupees Eighty Five lakhs. It is asserted in the petition that out of the aforesaid turnover leather cloth sale alone constit...
Yaka International Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2405; 1996(5)KarLJ469
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The short question which needs to be considered in this Writ Petition is as to whether the petitioner, who is desirous of setting up an industry to manufacture toiletries, such as after-shave lotion, eudecolon etc., having denatured spirit as one of its inputs (raw material), is required to obtain a licence as per provisions of Section 6 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act 1955 (in short the Central Act) and the rules framed thereunder namely, the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules 1956 (in short 'the Central Rules').2. Section 2 of the Central Act is the definition clause. Clause(a) of this Section defines the 'alcohol' to mean ethyl alcohol of any strength and purity having chemical composition C2H5OH. Clause(c) thereof defines 'dutiable goods' to mean the medicinal and toilet preparations specified in the schedule as being subject to the duties of excise levied under the said Act. Clause(k) of the Section defines ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »