Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant72; 1998(1)KarLJ293
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. These appeals project yet another instance and efforts of the management of the private educational institutions attempting to play with the career of the students with a sole object of filling up their coffer taking shelter under one or the other pretext, lacunae or loop holes in the laws governing educational system.2. To overpower the evil of capitation fee and to regulate the process of admission to professional and technical courses, the State Legislature has enacted the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 (hereinafter called the Act). Subsequently, under the powers conferred by the said Act the State has also framed the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission ofEngineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1993 (hereinafter called the Rules).3. Since then, admissions to these courses are regulated as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules. As mentioned, the greed of the private educational institutions a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant265; ILR1997KAR3175; 1998(1)KarLJ345
ORDER1. The property in question is a site bearing No. 3 situated in Gokul I Stage, I Phase, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore measuring East to West 60' and North to South 40'. This site was allotted to one Muniyappa, husband of Sharadamma, the mother of the petitioners herein on 29-3-1971 by the then City Improvement Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). The allottee Muniyappa requested the Board to transfer the site in question in the name of his wife Sharadamma and accordingly the site was transferred in the name of Sharadamma and possession certificate was also issued on 20th May, 1971 as per Annexure-A. Some persons tried to illegally build sheds and interfere with her possession of the site in question and therefore Sharadamma filed O.S. No. 1121 of 1971 in the Court of the Munsiff, Bangalore against L. Rama Reddy, Anjanappa, Subadra Bai, City Improvement Trust Board, Appaswamy, Y. Krishonoji Rao, Shivaji and Tukaram for permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999ACJ409; (1999)IIILLJ512Kant
Harinath Tilhari, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri. S.P. Shankar, in this appeal.The only point that has been raised before this Court is that the Insurance Company has been made liable for payment of penalty or the interest on the amount of compensation which was payable by respondent No. 2, to respondent No. 1.2. Learned Counsel contended that the Company had never assured the Insured to pay amount imposed on him as penalty or as interest for the Insured's failure to comply with the requirements of law to pay the compensation on the due date. Learned Counsel contended that this has specifically been also made clear as per endorsement made in the insurance policy of which insured was possessed of. The appellant had only taken the undertaking to pay the compensation for injury. Learned Counsel asserted that there was an endorsement in the policy to the effect that coverage of the policy shall not extend, then they may indemnify the insured in respect of any interest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1651
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant Sri S.P. Shankar, in this appeal. The only point that has been raised before this Court is that the Insurance Company has been made liable for payment of penalty or the interest on the amount of compensation which was payable by Respondent No. 2, to Respondent No. 1. 2. Learned Counsel contended that the Company had never assured the Insured to pay amount imposed on him as penalty or as interest for the Insured's failure to comply with the requirements of law to pay the compensation on the due date. Learned Counsel contended that this has specifically been also made clear as per endorsement made in the insurance policy of which the insured was in possession, the appellant had only taken the undertaking to pay the compensation for injury. Learned Counsel asserted that there was an endorsement in the policy to the effect that coverage of the policy shall not extend, then they may indemnify the insured in respect of any i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR635; 1998(1)KarLJ326
ORDER1. In this petition for a certiorari the petitioner calls in question the validity of an order dated 22nd of September, 1997 issued by the Commissioner of Corporation of City of Bangalore demoting him from the post of Executive Engineer to that of Assistant Executive Engineer by way of punishment in the purported exercise of the powers vested in the latter under Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.2. The petitioner is an Executive Engineer in the Bangalore City Corporation. An enquiry into certain charges levelled against him was instituted by the Government by its order dated 26th of December, 1994 and entrusted to the Upalokayukta under Rule 14-A of the K.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1957. The Upalokayukta, conducted the enquiry and drew up a report dated 11th of February, 1997 holding the charges to have been proved. The record of the case along with the findings were then submitted to the Government under Rule 14-A(2)(d) of K.C.S. and C.C.A. Rules with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1997(4)KarLJ673
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Learned Single Judge by which he has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by him, wherein the appellant had challenged the order dated 25.2.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy right in favour of one Nagappaiah, since dead, whose heirs have been impleaded as respondents-4 to 8.2. Admittedly the lands in question were Devadya Inam Lands of the third respondent Mujrai Institution, Pursuant to the notification No. SO.603 dated 4.4.1970 issued by the State Government under Section 1(4) of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') the inam lands in question also came to be vested in the Government. Consequent upon the said vesting, as provided under Section 6 of the said Act, the appellant, late Nagappaiah and respondent-9 filed applications before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan, for registering them as occupants.3. Sections 6 and 9(1) of the Act, which are relevant for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR436; 1998(1)KarLJ402
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, dated 2-9-1992, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein, thereby, directing the Tahsildar to enter the name of the 2nd respondent along with the petitioner in the Revenue Records.2. Brief facts leading to this filing of writ petition, are as follows:--Petitioner's father was a tenant of the schedule lands and upon his application in Form 7 to the Land Tribunal, the LandTribunal has registered him as an occupant of the land in conformity with Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ('the Act' for short). Petitioner's father died on 3-10-1982, leaving behind him a Will, bequeathing the schedule lands in the name of the petitioner. After the death of his father, petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Tahsi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR719
D.P. Wadhwa, J1. Plaintiff is in appeal. He is aggrieved by the judgment dated May 20, 1992 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in regular second appeal whereby its suit for injunction both perpetual and mandatory was dismissed. The trial Court had also dismissed the suit though he succeeded in the first appeal. 2. Plaintiff instituted his suit on May 3, 1986. The sole defendant was Brig. Maharaja Sukhjit Singh. The plaintiff sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering in the land measuring 32 KIs. 12 mis. situated in the revenue estate of Jalandhar of which the plaintiff claimed to be in cultivating possession. During the pendency of the suit the plaint impleaded Balbir Singh Chandi as defendant No. 2 and amended plaint was filed on June 18, (sic) 1986. Now, the plaintiff said that the, first defendant through his attorney Pritpal Singh allowed the second defendant to take forcible and illegal possession of land measuring 1 kanal 12 mis. out of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR4271
ORDER XLI Rule 33 - First Appellate Court has power to make an order not only as between the Appellant and Respondent but also in favour of or against the Respondent who is a party and who has not preferred any Cross Objections. In view of the above contingency of the cases, the principles that evolves is that Order 41 Rule 33 is wide enough to include a power on the part of the appellate Court to make whatever order it thinks fit not only as between the appellant and the respondent but also in favour of the respondent who is a party and who has not preferred cross-objection. It cannot be said that under no circumstances the appellate court cannot give him a relief, under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(3)KarLJ587
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B.R.S. Guptha and Sri B.E. Kotian, learned Government Advocate for respondents.2. The only point that has been raised in the writ petition in course of arguments relates to the validity of Rule 151, clause (2) of Rules 1989 namely Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner in this petition has claimed the following reliefs.(1) Declaration that Rule 151(2) of the Karnataka MotorVehicles Rules, 1989 is ultra vires and is violative of Articles 14and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India;(2) Quashing of endorsement dated 1-12-1995 bearing No. RTA.I.REPL.PR 60/95-96 and for issuance of a direction to respondent 2 to grant the permission for replacement.3. Petitioner's case is that, having purchased the stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No. AP 09/U 4047 having the wheel-base of 205' and the seating capacity of 38 + 2, the petitioner moved an application on 24-11-1995 for inclusion of the ...
Tag this Judgment!