Karnataka Court July 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.
A.P. Somashekar Vs. Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3375; 1996(7)KarLJ225
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J.1. Though this petition is listed for preliminary hearing, the same is taken up for final disposal, on issuing rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel appearing on both the sides, since the question in controversy relates only in respect of the jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction, of the second respondent to pass an order of suspension against Class-II employee of the corporation.2. The petitioner is a Class-II Officer working in the first respondent corporation as a Warehouse Manager-Grade II. By the order dt. 1.6.1996, the second respondent kept him under suspension in contemplation of an enquiry in respect of certain acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the said order on the ground that, the second respondent lacks jurisdiction to make an order of suspension against Class-II Officer in view of Regulation 20 of the Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1959, h...
N.H. Anjanappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR576
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged the notifications dated 30.5.1988 and 18.3.1989 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Petitioners claim to be the owners of certain lands which were proposed for acquisition under Section 4(1) of Act, in favour of the 4th respondent-Trinity House Building Co-operative Society, to provide sites to its members. Pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the petitioners have filed their objections objecting the proposed acquisition on several grounds. The Land Acquisition Officer overruled all the objections and submitted the Report recommending for acquisition of the lands. On the basis of the said Report, the Government has issued a final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act. These notifications are called in question in these petitions.3. The brief facts of the case are:-That one Sri S. Rangar...
Prathiba Distributors Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3025
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer and dealer in Non-pressure Kerosene Wick Stoves. It is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. He has come up before this Court for quashing of the notice dated 29.9.95 issued under Section 12A of the Act proposing to reassess the petitioner's turnover tax liability for the year 1992-93. The original assessment for this period was concluded on 25.3.1994. The only reason for initiating the reassessment proceedings is that, according to the respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, keeping in view the notification No. FD.107/CSL 89 XI] dated 31.3.89 (Annexure 'B') the petitioner was not entitled to exemption from turnover tax as contemplated under Section 6B of the Act and exemption in the regular assessment was wrongly granted by relying upon the earlier notification No. FD.107 CSL.89(XII), Karnataka Gazette dated 31.3.89(Annexure-C).2. Both the aforesaid notifications had been issued und...
Moulana Moulvi Kazi Syed ShafiuddIn and Asghar HussaIn Vs. State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1718
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. An order dated 8th of May 1991 issued by the Government in , exercise of its powers under Section 2 of the Kazis Act, 1880 appointing the petitioners in those two Writ Petitions as Kazis for the Villages mentioned therein is what has been brought under challenge in these Writ Petitions. The challenge arises in the back ground of the following facts:-One Masaheba Bi was appointed as a Kazi for an area comprising 58 villages of Manvi Taluk in Raichur District by the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad under the provisions of the Kazis Act. Certain litigation against the appointment made appears to have started culminating in an order dated 18th of August 1987 passed by this Court in Writ Appeals Nos.646 and 1459 of 1983. The said order settled the controversy between the parties based on a compromise arrived at between them, according to which Masaheba Bi was to continue to be the Kazi of Manvi Taluk, whereas Asghar Hussain, petitioner in WP No. 12805/92 was to ...
Jayakar Vs. the State, by Frazer Town Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2783; 1996(3)KarLJ747
ORDERK.H.N. Kuranga, J.1. This petition is listed for admission today. The learned Government Pleader had taken notice for the respondents. Though the name of the State is not shown in the cause-list, the learned Government Pleader who had received the copy of the petition on 1.7.1996 appears for the respondent.2. Heard both the sides. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, the petition is taken up for final disposal.3. The petitioner has in this petition prayed for setting aside the order dated 19.6.1996 passed by the learned 4th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCEH No. 21) in SC No. 307/1992.4. The Police filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 307, 302 and 201 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and now the case is pending on the file of the 4th Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (CCCH No. 21). When the...
K. Kunhambu and anr. Vs. Vijaya Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3244; 1996(7)KarLJ94
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J. 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners herein are the Judgment Debtors (UDrs' for short) in Execution Petition No. 94/92 pending on the file of the Court-below and the respondent Vijaya Bank is the Decree-Holder. This revision by the JDrs. is directed against the said execution proceeding filed against them by the respondent in the Court-below ie. the Learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore for recovery of decretal amount to the tune of Rs. 18,29,851-15 on the ground that in view of the relevant provisions of the 'Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993' ('the Act' for short) the execution proceeding before the Court-below is not maintainable and that the respondent DHr. has to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Act stationed at Bangalore for realisation of the said decretal amount.3. Indisputably, the amount payable to respondent-DHr. by the petitioners under the said decree, w...
Ram Estate Vs. Corporation Bank and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3541; 1996(7)KarLJ574
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. This Writ Petition prays for a mandamus directing the first-Respondent-Bank not to collect any amount from the petitioner in connection with the guarantee fee payable to the third Respondent-Corporation under the Loans Guarantee Scheme 1971 and to refund to the petitioner the amount collected on that account till date.2. With a view to develop an abandoned Coffee Estate, the petitioner submitted a scheme to the 2nd Respondent, seeking financial assistance. The scheme was approved for a sum of Rs. 73,309 lakhs, credit facilities to which extent were granted by the 2nd Respondent-Bank subject to the terms and conditions set out in the sanction letter as also the agreement and Deed of Hypothecation, executed in that regard.3. During April 1990, the first-Respondent appears to have debited a sum of Rs. 85,213-30 to the petitioner's account. On being questioned about the said entry the Bank by its letter dated 28th May 1990, informed the petitioner that the amoun...
Corporation of City of Mysore Vs. Public Interest Litigation Associati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant70; 1997(1)KarLJ70
ORDER1. A point of some interest has been raised by the petitioners before me who are the Corporation of the City of Mysore in these two Civil Revision Petitions. It may be.briefly summarised in the following terms ;(a) Whether in a case where a group of citizens have presented a composite challenge to the enhancement of property tax through a writ petition filed before the High Court andthe High Court has rejected the petition after hearing the parties through a speaking order which order has thereafter, been confirmed in appeal; it will, at all be open to another group of citizens to file a suit challenging the same notification as also the action?(b) Where the Corporation contends that all matters relating to the levy of tax and challenges thereto are provided for in a self-contained statute, and where there are specific provisions for redressal of grievances in such a statute, whether it would be open to a group of citizens to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court if the enhan...
Sri Anna Rao and ors. Vs. Sri Gundareddy and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1998
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. Though this matter is posted for preliminary hearing in 'B Group', with the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.2. The petitioners, in this petition, claim to be owners in possession of land measuring 11 acres 24 guntas in Survey No. 6 situated at Chatrasal village, Chincholi Taluk, Gulbarga District. They have sought for quashing the order dated 31st October 1995 passed by the third respondent-Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), confirming the order dated 11th January 1993 made in No. REV/RP/25/91-92 by the second respondent. Copies of the said orders passed by respondents 3 and 2 have been produced as Annexure-A and B respectively.3. By the order Annexure-B, on the basis of the representation given by the first respondent stating that the land in question belongs to the State Government and that the names of the petitioners were wrongly entere...
Smt. Iravva and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commissioner, Dharward Division ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3492; 1996(7)KarLJ394
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard learned Advocates. These two Civil Revision Petitions involve a common point of law and they are therefore being heard and disposed of together. The facts are hardly in dispute in so far as the petitioners' lands were acquired by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, for the benefit of the second respondents K.S.R.T.C. arid these proceedings culminated in an award in the year 1963. These two petitioners received their compensation and it is contended that they had migrated elsewhere in search of work and were therefore unaware of the subsequent developments. Several other similarly situated persons whose lands had also been acquired applied for a reference to the Court for enhancement of compensation which proceedings went up from the District Court and ultimately culminated before the High Court on 30.12.1986. there is one other significant date which assumes importance which is 30.3.1977, namely the date on which the District Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »