Karnataka Court September 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.
K.R. Tyagi Vs. National Textile Corporation Ltd. and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ999Kant
ORDER1. An over ambitious spinning master, now retired from the services of 1st respondent-Corporation is before this Court in a petition filed under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia seeking the following reliefs :'(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order of direction, quashing the endorsement bearing reference No. NTC/PIR/7(S)/88/3501 dated December 9, 1988 (Annexure-E) as the same is arbitrary, capricious and cannot be sustained. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to pay the petitioner the amounts in lieu of 'earned leave', leave travel concession, medical reimbursement and the benefit of normal annual increments with the benefits of revised pay and all allowances with a further direction to the respondents to pay interest on this sum at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date on which the said amount became payable till the date of payment'.2. Briefly the backgro...
M/s. South Indian Plywood Manufacturers' Association, Mysore and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ236
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. The petitioners, who are running the plywood industries in the States of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, have, in these petitions, prayed for: (i) Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the assurances held out on 17-11-1984 and set out in Annexure-G and L. (ii) Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith release and supply the raw materials to petitioners 2 to 12 for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 at the rates respectively prevailing in the quantities set out in the agreements entered into by the Government with each of the petitioner and continue to supply the same as per the agreements. (iii) Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to renew such of the agreements entered into by the Government with each of the petitioners and which have since expired. (iv) Issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the respondents from...
Karnataka Board of Wakfs Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3566; 1996(7)KarLJ585
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. The instant Petition is registered when case records in LRA No. 64/88 were received from the Authorities consequent to the abolition of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Tumkur, on the filing of C.P.No.363/90 for that purpose and further to treat the Appeal as Writ Petition. Hence, what is before this Court is the Appeal in No. LRA 64/88 in the form of a Writ Petition.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri S.S. Guttal for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel Sri K.R. Balakrishna for the respondent No. 3.3. The petitioner herein had filed originally Appeal No. 64/88 to challenge the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for grant of occupancy right in respect of lands in S.No. 14/3, 14/5, 14/8 and 14/9 of Ashur Khan (Bobayyana Gudi) in passing the order dated 8-6-88 of the respondent No. 2 - Land Tribunal, Tumkur,4. The brief facts of the case are as fo...
Heritage Paper Mills Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1996
Reported in: ILR1998KAR1003
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. The second Respondent Corporation (KSIIDC) had taken over the as sets of its Borrower M/s Ramgopal Paper Mills Limited situated at Gopalan Industrial Estate, Thandavapura, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 ('Act' for short) and issued a public notice for the sale of the as sets consisting of land, building, plant and machinery, on 'as is where is' condition. The tenders were given the option to make offers for all the as sets or for land and building and plant and machinery separately. The tenders were required to indicate the total sale consideration, up-front payment, mode of balance payment, background of the person making the offer etc. The Corporation reserved the right to accept/reject/negotiate any offer without assigning any reasons.2. The last date for submission of sealed offers with E.M.D. of Rs. 1 lakh was 22.12.1994. The public notice provided that the tenders will be opened on the same...
G. Ekantappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)688; [1998]93CompCas826a(Kar); [1998]93CompCas933(Kar); 1997CriLJ1274; ILR1997KAR1014; 1997(2)KarLJ63
B.N. Mallikarjuna, J. 1. The legality or the correctness of taking cognizance and issuing summons to the revision-petitioner on November 30, 1994, by the Munsiff and JMFC, Hadagali, District of Bellary in a criminal case instituted on a private complaint by the second respondent for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is challenged in this revision petition. 2. The revision petitioner is the accused. The second respondent is the complainant and the first respondent is the State of Karnataka. Hereinafter I refer to the parties as they are described in the private complaint for the purpose of convenience. 3. A few facts relevant for the disposal of this revision may be stated thus : It appears the accused had taken a hand loan of Rs. 30,000 from the complainant for his contract work on October 4, 1993, promising to repay him on demand. When the complainant demanded repayment of the amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 124453 dated January 18, ...
Harisingh Vs. Achamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR255; 1997(1)KarLJ315
ORDERA.M. Farooq, J1. This revision petition filed under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act is directed against the order dated 24.7.1996 in H.R.C.No. 290/93. The revision petitioner is the respondent before the Trial Court, where the respondents herein instituted an Eviction Petition against the revision petitioner.2. In the said proceedings, the eviction petitioners filed I.A.II under Section 29 of the Act praying to direct the revision petitioner to payarrears of rent of Rs. 29,600/- being the rental arrears according to them from April, 1988 till the end of May, 1994 at the rate of Rs. 400 per month. The revision petitioner denied that he is due in arrears. According to him, he has paid Rs 5,000/- under Ex.R3-Cheque.3. It is stated by the revision petitioner that the first respondent is the mother of the second respondent and the second respondent has an elder brother by name Balaram. This Balaram was examined by the tenant-revision petitioner as his witness. The said wit...
G.T. Rama Reddy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: ILR1997KAR361
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J1. Petitioner is a subscriber of Telephone No. 226798 (later 2226798). The said telephone connection was obtained 25.4.1989. The telephone was earlier installed in premises No. 184/2, 18th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-20. On 26.9.1989, the petitioner requested for shifting the said telephone to No. 21, Shivaganga Mutt Road, Bangalore-18. The Department informed the petitioner by letter dated 17.10.1989 that the telephone was located in the city exchange area and the shifting was sought to the Shankarapurarn Exchange area; and shifting from one exchange to other exchange, could be permitted only if the telephone had been obtained at least three years back; and if the telephone had been in service for less than three years, the date of application for new connection should be within the release period for new connection in the concerned category in the new exchange area; and as neither of the said conditions was fulfilled, the Department was unable to shift the ...
D.P. Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1996
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ229
ORDER1. The constitutional validity of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act') has been challenged in these writ petitions mainly on the ground of its being violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that in the absence of rules as contemplated under the section, the provisions are unworkable. A declaration is sought to the effect that till rules as per sub-section (14)(a) of Section 88 of the Act are not framed, the respondents be restrained from seizing and detaining tourist vehicles of the petitioners and others. Direction is sought against respondents 3 and 4 and their subordinate checking officers not to compel the compounding fee for the offences which fall at Item No. 10 of the notification dated 25-10-1990 issued in FTD 18 TMR 89 at the place of seizure of the vehicle. It is further prayed that respondents 3 and 4 be directed to refund the compounding fee so far collected from the drivers of the touri...
Mohammed Basheer Ahmed Vs. Hakeem Noorulla Sherief
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3317; 1996(7)KarLJ38
ORDERG.P. Shivaprakash, J.1. This Revision Petition is presented by the tenant against the order passed by the Trial Court on the application filed by the landlord under the provisions, of Section 29(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The Trial Court had previously allowed the application filed by the landlord under Section 29(1) of the Act while dismissing the application filed by the tenant under Section 18(2) of the said Act. The main petition before the Trial Court was filed by the landlord under Section 21(1) (h) and (p) of the Act for seeking eviction of the tenant.2. During the pendency of the main petition, an application was filed by the landlord under Section 29(1) of the Act. The said application was disposed off by the Trial Court by order dated 7.3.1991 on the ground that the tenant had after filing o the said application paid all the arrears of rent. However, on a second application filed by the landlord under the aforesaid provision the Court allowed the applica...
Hanumanthappa and anr. Vs. Chandrashekarappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-05-1996
Reported in: ILR1996KAR3628; 1996(7)KarLJ645
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J.1. The petitioners herein were the defendants in O.S. 10/1995 in the Court of the I Additional Civil Judge & C.J.M. at Dharwad and the respondents were the plaintiffs therein'.2. The facts giving rise to this revision are as under:-Initially, the plaintiffs had filed their suit against petitioners in the Court of the Munsiff at Navalgund which was registered in O.S.158/ 94 on its file. That suit was filed for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction against defendants. A preliminary issue had arisen from the respective pleadings of the parties in regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court at Navalgund to try the said suit. That issue was tried by the Learned Munsiff and his finding thereon was recorded by his order dated 23.1.1995, holding that the subject matter of the suit exceeded the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction. Accordingly, he ordered return of the plaint to the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. for presentation in proper ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »