Karnataka Court August 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.
Sri Vasudeva Rao Vs. Smt. Shailaja and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3632; 1996(7)KarLJ689
ORDERB.N. Mallikarjuna, J.1. Certain lands measuring 10 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No. 29A of Sankanur Village in Yelaburga Taluk, District of Raichur was owned and possessed by one Adavi Rao. He had 3 sons by name Swami Rao, Venkatarao and Hanumantha Rao. It appears at a partition of the family properties, this land was left for the maintenance of Adavi Rao. Adavi Rao died in about the year 1960. Venkat Rao died in about the year 1984 and Hanumantha Rao in the year 1990.Venkat Rao died leaving behind his widow Indira Bai and son Vasudeva Rao, the revision petitioners before this Court. Hanumantha Rao died leaving behind his widow Krishna Bai and son Raghavendra Rao.Swami Rao had four daughters and three sons. Swami Rao's case is that he was in enjoyment of this property right from 1954 and in about the year 1984, in a family arrangement settled the property in favour of his daughters viz., kamala, Rangubai and Shailaja, respondents 1 to 3 in the case to the exclusion of their sons, Ananth ...
Grama Seva Pratishthana and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: ILR1998KAR116
ORDERP. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.1. In this petition, the first petitioner claims to be a Charitable Trust registered under the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and is represented by its Trustee-Shri T. Ashok Pai. and the second petitioner claims to be a rate payer and resident of No. 51, Anantha Nagar, Manipal: According to them, they have filed this petition for espousing the public cause.2. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 3rd March 1989, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A, passed by the second respondent granting 48 cents of land in Survey No. 411/1 (which has been re-numbered as 411/1A2) in favour of the 5th respondent-Rajapura Saraswatha Bramhana Sangha (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sangha') and also the building licence bearing No. 64/1990-91 dated 4th October 1990, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F, and sanctioned Plan, the copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F1, issued by the 4th respondent-Mandal Panchayat permi...
Bangalore University Vs. Sheetal Patel and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ443
ORDER1. The respondent 1, a student of First year M.B.B.S. appeared for I year M.B.B.S. Part-I Examination in the subjects of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry and failed in all the subjects. Feeling herself entitled to the grant of grace marks she made a representation Annexure-B and application for a revaluation, Annexure-D, but without any result. Ultimately, she filed a writ petition in this Court which was allowed by the order impugned directing the appellant to award grace marks to the petitioner/respondent 1 in the subject of Anatomy (a) and (b) subjects and declare her as having passed in the said subject.2. The judgment of the learned Single Judge has been assailed on the ground that the directions issued were contrary to the proviso to Regulation 6 of Gracing Regulations. The learned Single Judge is stated to have not taken notice of the fact that the said proviso prescribed that 'no candidate shall have the benefit of gracing for the paper/s and the aggregate at the same ...
State of Karnataka Vs. Benoy Thomas
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)792; 1997CriLJ1225; ILR1997KAR186
1. The State being aggrieved by the Judgment in CC No. 199/1995 dt. 6-2-1996 on the file of the J.M.F.C. (Ill) Court, Mangalore, has preferred this Criminal appeal for enhancement of sentence. 2. This is the case where the trial Court has convicted the accused under S. 304-A, IPC and has sentenced the accused till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for six months. The State has challenged the sentence relying on a judgment of Supreme Court reported in ILR 1987 Kant 1894 : (1987 Cri LJ 776), State of Karnataka v. Krishna @ Raju. The Supreme Court in that judgment has found fault in Court's rendering flea bite sentence. The Supreme Court found that the conduct of the accused in that case was reprehensible where the accused failed to secure the medical assistance to the injured person and also failed to report the accident to the police authorities. In the words of the Supreme Court here was a case where the respondent had not only driven his ...
N.A. Amareshappa and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)KarLJ463
ORDERHarinath Tilhari, J.1. These Writ Petitions raise common questions of law and the reliefs claimed in these petitions are same. Hence, these petitions are clubbed and are decided by the following common judgment.2. The petitioners have approached this Court for grant of the following reliefs:-a) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or direction directing the respondents not to enforce the Notification dated 19.8.1988 bearing No. Annexure-B issued by the first respondent until compliance is made by the respondents as provided under Sections 6(4), 7, 9 and 63 of the Karnataka Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee Act;b) Issue a Writ/Order/Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or direction not to demand and collect market fee from the petitioners until the executive orders are issued under Section 7 of the Act after satisfying the bye-laws or resolution passed by the third respondent Market Committee in implementing the intention of regulating the add...
S. Reddappa Vs. Sri Vijaya M.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)365; 1997CriLJ98; ILR1997KAR87; 1997(1)KarLJ291
ORDER1. The only question involved in this revision is whether in the trial of a summons case instituted on a private complaint, accused is entitled to an acquittal on the death of the complainant or whether a fit and proper person could be permitted to continue the complaint. 2. Few facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition needs to be stated : Deceased Dr. S. V. Sunkappa on December 5, 1989 through an advocate made a written complaint under S. 200, Cr.P.C. in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate III Court), Bangalore against the respondent-accused alleging commission of an offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is stated that cheque No. 604458 dated October 30, 1989 for Rs. 3,75,000/- issued to him by the accused drawn on Mandya District Co-operative Bank, Naguvanahally Branch when presented for encashment through Canara Bank, Srirampuram Branch, Bangalore was bounced with endorsement 'Refer to Drawer'. The accused failed to reply or make payment ...
B.L. Ragini Vs. Lohia Machines Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-07-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR553; 1997(1)KarLJ724
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate. The respondent is served and is unrepresented. The petitioner's learned Advocate demonstrates to me that there is absolutely no dispute on facts in this case that the petitioner had booked a scooter and paid amount of Rs. 500-00 which the Company i.e. defendant-1 was liable to refund since the booking was cancelled. The suit was undefended and in order to dispose of the same expeditiously, the plaintiff's learned Advocate deleted original defendant-1 which was the Company which is located at Kanpur. This is perhaps understandable. The difficulty of serving D-1 would have only delayed the disposal of the proceeding. Petitioner's learned Advocate clarifies that D-1 is represented in Bangalore City it self in so far as the regional Office of the Limited Company is located here and that the 2nd defendant is admittedly also the dealer for this region. His contention therefore is the D-2 is synonymous with defendant-1.2...
Ne Varadaraja Cashew Industries Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3327; 1997(42)KarLJ52
ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J.1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders of deferment dated May 16, 1996 (annexures G and H), which have been passed by the respondent-Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the year 1993-94, purporting to act under section 12(6)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short 'the Act'), as amended by Karnataka Act 5 of 1996. 2. The petitioner, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of manufacturing of 'cashew kernels'. It is registered under the provisions of the Act. 3. For the year in question the petitioner-firm was served with the notice of demand in form 5 issued under the provisions of section 12-B of the Act read with rule 17(2) requiring him to pay the advance tax on raw cashew. The petitioner challenged the said notice, inter alia, on the ground that no tax was payable on the raw cashew, on various grounds by filing a writ petition bearing W.P. No. 37943 of 1992, wherein the operation of the said notice was stayed by an interim order ...
Powerflow Ltd. and anr. Vs. Addl. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: 1996(6)KarLJ657; (1998)IIILLJ1180Kant
R.P. Sethi. C.J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the appeals were heard at length on merits at the initial stage of admission and being disposed of by this common judgment 2. Under the cloak of technicalities and procedural wrangles the respondents-workmen are intended to be deprived of their two times bread and thereby forced to starvation. The appellants with hands in gloves with their sister-concern have left no stone unturned in unnecessarily dragging the workmen to litigation with apparently oblique motive of tiring them in their genuine struggle of remaining alive. The appellants are shown to have succeeded in depriving the respondents-workmen from getting any job w.e.f. September 26, 1994, the day when they ventured to go on strike. Not deterred by the order of the Labour Court passed under Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act and of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 38720-38744/95, the appellants have ventured to file the present app...
State of Karnataka Vs. Vishwabharathi House Building Co-op. Society Lt ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR534
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These appeals are filed by the aggrieved respondents in the writ Petition. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) is constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Section 69 of the said Act empowers the Government for framing of rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act in particular the restrictions, conditions and limitation subject to which the authority may lease, sell or transfer moveable or immovable property and to regulate the allotment or sale by auction of sites by the Authority. In exercise of that power, the State framed the rules known as 'The Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984' (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rules 8 and 9 read as follows:'8. REGISTRATION: (1) Every applicant for a site shall register his name on payment of registration fees as specified in the table below. If an applicant withdraws the registration, the Authority shall refund to such applicant the entire registration ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »