Karnataka Court January 1997 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.
E.R. Manjaiah and ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1025; 1997(4)KarLJ1
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Authority') dated 16.1.93 attached to the petitions as Annex-T, various allottees of the plots under the scheme advertised vide Annex-A have filed these petitions with the prayer of quashing the resolution of the authority under subject No. 235/92 dated 19.12.1992 holding the same to be illegal, unconstitutional and void. It is further prayed that the authority be directed to fix the sital value of the sites allotted to the petitioners strictly in proportion to the actual Cost of forming the sites of different dimensions and receive the balance of sital value from the petitioners only after completing the development scheme strictly in accordance with the requirements of Section 16 of the B.D.A. Act. In some of the petitions, a prayer has been made for declaring Rule 12 of the Bangalore Development Authority Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called the Rules) as unconstitutional and th...
Zee Telefilms Limited and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR1071
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J.1. The petitioners herein challenge Annexure-H order issued by the 1st respondent permitting the 5th Respondent to use the electrical poles of the 4th respondent Board for the purpose of laying their Cable TV Network. 'Shorn of detailed argumentative pleadings, the brief facts of the case are as follows:2. The petitioners are established Cable TV Network operators in the cities of Bangalore and Mysore since about one year. The 1st petitioner applied for permission to the 1st respondent for the use of electricity poles for the purpose of laying cable wires. In response to the said application, the 2nd respondent sent Annexure-B communication intimating that the 1st respondent has constituted a Committee to examine the request for the use of the electricity poles of the 4th respondent and that the said Committee would examine the representation of the petitioner and others. It called upon the petitioners to furnish the information noted therein. On 21-9-1995, the...
Dr. H. Singh Khalsa Vs. B.L. Narendra and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)176; 1998CriLJ768; 1998(6)KarLJ464
ORDER9-1-1997:1. This contempt proceeding has been instituted by Dr. H. Singh Khalsa, whom we shall hereinafter refer to as the 'complainant' and who was at the relevant time running Khalsa Medical and Educational Trust. The complainant claims that he is specialised in the field of Electropathy Electro Homeopathy, which is an alternate system of medicine and it is his case that the Trust was running an institution by name Khalsa Institute of Medical Sciences for the purpose of doing researchand imparting education in this particular branch of medicine to persons who are desirous of obtaining such knowledge. The Trust and the Institute were granting certificates to the candidates who successfully complete their training and examination. It is the case of the complainant that he is fully and perfectly entitled to carry on this profession of his and according to him, the decision taken by the State authorities who were of the view that since this system of medicine is not recognised, that...
H.G. Ramachandra Rao Vs. Master Srikantha and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ1318; AIR1997Kant347; ILR1997KAR2828; 1997(3)KarLJ508
Acts/Rules/Orders:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 88, 149(2) and 168;Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 17;Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279 and 338;Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - Sections 31 and 96(2) Cases Referred:Paragounda v. Bhimappa, ILR 1992 Kant 3709, (AIR 1993 Kant 103);Narchinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins, AIR 1985 SC 1281;Bishan Devi v. Sirbaksh Singh, AIR 1979 SC 1862;United Indai Fir & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kum. Nagarathna;Indra Singh v. Income-tax Commissioner, AIR 1943 Patna 169;Ram Prakash v. Anand Prasad, AIR 1916 PC 256, 43 Ind App 73 (P.C.);Molar v. Ramparjshad, AIR 1927 Lahore 377;Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental Fire & Gen. Insurance Co., AIR 1989 SC 2002;Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Case AIR 1987 SC 1184JUDGEMENT1. This appeal which arises from the judgment and award dated 26-10-1991. by Sri K. Ramanna (Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VIII. Bangalore City), in M.V.C. HW of 1986. has been preferred by the registered owner/owner of th...
Veeramani Vs. Presiding Officer and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR2121
1. The petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the first respondent in a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The question raised by the petitioner is, whether a settlement entered into between the workers and employers' association, of which association the employer in question is a member, can be held to bind the employer treating him as a cognomina party to the settlement. The factual materials are as follows : 2. The petitioner herein, who allegedly is a member of Binny Karmikara Sangha which is the trade union of the workers of the second respondent industry, contends that a settlement had been entered into between the workers working in various textile mills in the Karnataka State and the Karnataka Textile Mills Association on September 18, 1979 (annexure 'D'). Clause 11 of the said agreement reads thus : 'This settlement will be in force till December 31, 1980. However, the parties agree to resume discussions without prejudice to the rights of b...
Toirabi Vs. Gouse Inam Patil by His L.R.S and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: ILR1998KAR642; 1997(4)KarLJ241
B. Padmaraj, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a partition Suit. This Court, while admitting the Appeal has sated that the substantial question of law, which is involved in this Appeal is:-Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff has no right to claim share in respect of Suit schedule lands?2. Therefore, untrammeled by the controversy which hinged in the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, I confine my consideration only to this question.3. The plaintiff (appellant herein) filed the Suit for partition and separate possession, claiming 204/57th share in the suit properties comprising of agricultural lands, house and open site. The Trial Court decreed the Suit of the plaintiff on 30.11.57., holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 27/48th share in the Suit schedule properties. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant No. 7 filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court by its judg...
Smt. Holamma Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR736; 1997(2)KarLJ494
ORDERB.K. Sangalad, J.1. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.1988 passed by the Land Tribunal, Manvi in No. LRM/lnam/Aldal/1/87-88 rejecting Form No. 1 filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner filed Form No. 1 for grant of occupancy right in respect of Sy.No. 101 measuring 27 acres 2 guntas stating that it is a Khairat Inam Land. The Land Tribunal rejected to consider the same stating that it has no jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by this, the present Writ Petition arises.3. Sri Shivakumar Kallur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Land Tribunal has got the jurisdiction in view of Section 141 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.4. Section 141 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act reads as follows:-Section 141 - Tenure Abolition Acts - Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of any of the Land Tenures Abolition Acts specified in Schedule II to the Act, in so far as such provisions relate to the conferm...
Dinesh M.G. Vs. the Director, Department of Pre-university Education a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: AIR1997Kant172; 1997(2)KarLJ337
ORDER1. This writ petition calls in question an order dated 2nd of December, 1996 passed by the respondent-Director of Pre-University Education, annulling the II PUC Examination taken by the petitioner and debarring him from appearing in two examinations due to be held in April and October, 1997.2. The petitioner appeared in the II PUC Examination conducted by the Department of Pre-University Educaiion, results whereof were announced on the 1st of June, 1996. A statement of marks issued in his favour showed that the petitioner had secured 51 marks in Chemistry and 54 marks in Mathematics out of a total of 100 in each one of those subjects. Dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him, the petitioner made an application on 3-10-1996 for re-totalling. The request for rebottling to appears did not evoke any response from the Board, with the result (hat the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 27722/96 for a Mandamus directing the Board to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application. ...
Dwarka Arm Factory, Bellary Vs. Khaja HussaIn R.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: II(1998)ACC144; 1999ACJ841; 1997(3)KarLJ412
1. This appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, filed by employer challenging the award dated April 30, 1992 in W.C. Case No. 103 of 1991 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 63,994/- minus the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which has already been paid by the employer to the deceased employee. The facts of the case in brief are that one Mehaboob Basha who was a carpenter with the appellant suffered injuries on July 30, 1988 in the accident, as a result of short circuit in the factory and died on August 5, 1988. The undisputed fact is that the appellant paid some amount as compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the father and dependent of the deceased employee Mehboob Basha. On December 7, 1991, 1st respondent who is the father of the deceased Mehboob Basha-employee, filed a claim petition under Sections 3 and 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming compensation. That along with the application for claiming compensation the claimant filed application for co...
The K.S.R.T.C. Central Officer and anr. Vs. Govinda Setty and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: ILR1997KAR983
ORDERV.P. Mohan Kumar, J1. The question raised in this Writ Petition is whether an application under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act made before the Labour Court by the dismissed worker beyond the stipulated period prescribedunder the said section should be rejected as time barred.2. The worker in question was appointed as a conductor on 13.4.1970. It is alleged that he was stopped from duty by the employer with effect from October, 1971. He approached the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act on 16.10.1988 seeking to set aside the action of the employer and for consequential relief. The Management contended inter alia that the application having been made beyond six months prescribed under the statute is time barred and should be rejected on that ground alone. The Labour Court entertained the application and held that the denial of the employment to the worker is illegal. It further called upon the employer to reinstatement the worker with back wages from the date of Sect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »