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.
The Management of Motor Industries Company Limited Vs. the Presiding O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1865
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J. 1. For the commission of certain alleged misconduct, the 2nd respondent worker herein was dismissed from service by the petitioner-Management after holding a domestic enquiry. The worker thereupon filed O.S.368/77 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Bangalore challenging the proceedings. The main relief sought for therein were as follows:'i) declaring that the charge sheet dated 2.3.1976 under Ex.A and the enquiry proceedings held in pursuance thereof are all illegal abilities and not binding on the plaintiff and especially in view of the communication marked Ex.'G', final orders may come-off any; ii) for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any action in pursuance of the said illegal enquiry and proceedings there; and' The averments in the plaint showed that his grievance were that:'17. This plaintiff in all humility submits that the entire proceedings commencing from the issue of the charges memo dated 2-3-1976 are abilit...
Gangadharappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR2415; 1996(3)KarLJ240
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam J.1. In this case, after the orders were pronounced, learned Counsel for A-1 and A-2 sought leave of this Court to stay the Order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 308/1990 to enable the appellants to approach the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. At first blush this Court was not impressed with the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The Court felt that this Court has no power to stay its own order. However, the matter has been posted today at the request of the learned Counsel for the appellants stating that a Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances has passed an order suspending the sentence passed on the accused for a limited period to enable the accused to prefer Special Leave Petition. The learned Counsel for the appellants cited a judgment reported in B. SUBBAIAH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 1992 (1) kar L.J. 419 In this case, the Court held that Section 389(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not att...
N. Venkoba Rao Vs. B.K. Shreenivasa Iyengar and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas383(Kar); ILR1996KAR3203
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate and the respondents learned, Advocate.2. The facts in this case are distressing. The Short point urged by the petitioner's learned Advocate is that his client was proceeded against in the execution proceedings for recovery of certain amounts which were invested by the respondent and against which the respondent-decree holder had obtained a decree. The learned Advocate submits that the business had collapsed and that an application for wading up of the concerns has been entertained by the High Court and a liquidator has been appointed. He has submitted that having regard to the provisions of Section 587 of the Companies Act that once such a development takes place, that it is not competent for any Court to either commence or continue with any legal proceedings in relation to recoveries either against the concern or persons who have contributed to it. He therefore submits that this revision is entitled to succeed in ...
G. Mahadevappa and Sons and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Kant294; ILR1996KAR2934; 1996(7)KarLJ402
ORDER1. In this petition, the petitioners have sought for : (1) a direction to the 1st respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 446.59 Lakhs (Rupees four hundred forty six lakhs fifty nine thousand only) with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of taking over of the Mill until such deposit is made with the Commissioner; (2) for a declaration that the notice of demand dated 31st May, 1990, issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'Provident Fund Commissioner), the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-G, as illegal and void; (3) for a direction restraining the 3rd respondent-Provident Fund Commissioner or his subordinates from demanding or enforcing recovery through the Revenue Department of the amount claimed under Annexure-G; (4) for a further direction to the 2nd respondent to adjudicate the claim and disburse the amounts as per the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Textile Mills (Acquisition and Transfer) Ac...
R. Pampapathi Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1510
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J. 1. The Petitioners have obtained mining leases from the State Government in regard to the mines, beds, veins and seams of Iron/ Manganese Ore in the lands leased to them, situated in forest areas. The petitioners, as lessees, are liable to pay annual dead rent at the rates specified in the Lease Deeds or Royalty on the ore removed by them from the leased area, as prescribed in the Second Schedule to the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the MMRD Act or the Central Act) whichever is higher in amount, but not both. By notices issued in the years 1992 and 1993, the jurisdictional Senior Geologists of the Mines and Geology Department, have called upon the Petitioners to pay Forest Development Tax under Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Forest Act' or 'State Act') from 1.4.1992 at the rate of Eight per cent per annum on the royalty amount paid by the Petitioners to the D...
Sri Nethaji Educational Society and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3058; 1996(6)KarLJ762
ORDERTirath Singh Thakur, J.1. An order issued by the 4th respondent-Registrar of Societies, Kolar, in consequence of an enquiry conducted under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 is what has been brought under challenge in these Writ Petitions. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the controversy are as under:-2. Sri Nethaji Educational Society, Malur is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. One Sri S. Venkaramana the founder President of the Society appears to have presented a petition before the Registrar making certain allegations as regards the affairs of the Society. On receipt of this representation the Registrar by his order dated 10.9.91 directed suo motu enquiry under Section 25 of the Act and on the basis of the findings recorded at the said enquiry passed the order impugned in these Writ Petitions. By the said order the Registrar held that the Committee headed by Sri S. Venkaramana and Sri M. Lakshmappa as Pr...
N. Kempanna Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1114
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. Though this petition 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. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Order dated 27.10.1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D, passed by the second respondent confirming Order dated 31.3.1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C, passed by the third respondent declaring the sale of land measuring 2 acres in Survey No. 109/33 situated at Andrahalli village, Chennarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District, made by one Muniveerappa in favour of the petitioner as null and void and further directing that the 4th respondent should be put in possession of the said land.3. Sri Vishwanath, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the orders impugned are illegal and suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the order...
Sri M. Sunnsab, Since Dead by Lrs. Vs. Rameezabi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3347; 1996(6)KarLJ86
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. The only point that has been canvassed by the petitioners in this case is that there is a complete bar of limitation that precludes the Respondents who were the original plaintiffs, from executing the decree which was originally passed as early as on 12.7.1967 which assumed finality on 10.12.1975 when the Second Appeal came to be disposed of by this Court. On 4.9.1992 an application was made to the Executing Court to give effect to that decree, whereupon the Court transmitted the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur with instructions to effect a partition by metes and bounds and put the 1st plaintiff in possession of her 1/3 share in the suit schedule properties. On coming to know of this, the present petitioners moved this Court by way of the present Revision Petition. It would have been competent for the petitioners to have moved the Executing Court itself, because the only plea canvassed by them is that even if the decree had become final on 10.12.1975 th...
K. Satya Narayana Prasad Vs. the Town Municipal Council and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-01-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3356; 1996(7)KarLJ519
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner as also learned Advocate who represents the Respondents Counsel.2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No. 234/91. Three persons, viz., Plaintiff No. 1 the father, Plaintiff No. 2 the son and plaintiff No. 3 the neighbour, fifed a suit in the Court of Principal Munisff at Puttur against the Town Municipal Council, Puttur and others for certain reliefs which essentially became necessary because the plaintiffs contended that dead animals and even human dead bodies were being dumped in a plot that was close by to where the plaintiffs reside and that the situation had become unbearable to them. An application under Order I Rule 8 CPC was filed before the Trial Court by Plaintiff No. 2 on the ground that he should be permitted to represent the plaintiffs in the proceedings. The application was resisted by the Respondent's Council on all sorts of grounds and very in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›