Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2934; 1999(3)KarLJ363
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The genesis of this litigation is the receipt of a letter from R. Shiva Bhaskaraswamy bringing to the notice of this Court a letter sent by the Secretary, Medical Council of India on 21-11-1994 to the Government of Karnataka, that certain medical colleges in Karnataka are admitting students in excess of the intake fixed by the Medical Council of India and sought for directions to take corrective steps to reduce the number of admissions in excess of the number approved by the Medical Council of India. That letter sent by R. Shiva Bhaskaraswamy was treated as a writ petition by registering it as such in public interest. On 26-8-1996, learned Single Judge made an order directing the State Government to ensure no medical or dental college admits any students for which the seats do not stand the test of mandatory provisions of Sections 10-A to 10-C of the Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Dental Council Act. Against that order, a writ appeal was preferred in Writ App...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ500
ORDER1. On 23-7-1977, when the petitioner was working as Traffic Controller in the 1st respondent-K.S.R.T.C. at Kolar Bus Stand, he was alleged to be guilty of misconduct in failing to observe the ticket numbers in the ticket tray properly, that 9 tickets of Rs. 1-05 denomination were found intact and in un-punched condition. He was, therefore, served with an article of charge in that regard to which he submitted a reply denying the charge. The disciplinary authority, however, passed an order holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of misconduct levelled against him. He then proceeded to impose a penalty of reducing the petitioner's pay by one incremental stage permanently. Petitioner's appeal to the Divisional Manager came to be dismissed. He has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order of the disciplinary authority at Annexure-B and that of the Appellate Authority at Annexure-D. 2. Regulation 18 of the Karnataka State Road Transpor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERG. Patri Basavana Goud, J.1. On 23-7-1977, when the petitioner was working as Traffic Controller in the 1st respondent K.S.R.T.C. at Kolar Bus Stand, he was alleged to be guilty of misconduct in failing to observe the ticket numbers in the ticket tray properly, that 9 tickets of Rs. 1-05 denomination were found intact and in un-punched condition. He was, therefore, served with an article of charge in that regard to which he submitted a reply denying the charge. The disciplinary authority, however, passed an order holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of misconduct levelled against him. He then proceeded to impose a penalty of reducing the petitioner's pay by one incremental stage permanently. Petitioner's apple to the Divisional Manager came to be dismissed. He has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order of the disciplinary authority at Annexure-B and that of the Appellate Authority at Annexure-D. 2. Regulation 18 of the Karn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(5)KarLJ56
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. Their suit for partition and separate possession was dismissed in O.S. 277 of 1969, on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, on 21-3-1973. On appeal in R.A. No. 17 of 1980 the learned X Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, has confirmed the dismissal by Judgment dated 29-8-1985, Hence the second appeal.2. The second appeal was admitted on the following questions oflaw.-'Whether the gift under Ex. P4 dated 25-2-1976, purported to have been made by Haji Mohammed Ibrahim and the parents of his deceased wife Balkies Bivi, in favour of defendants 1 to 5, under the case, satisfied the following two requisite conditions: (1) Acceptance of the gift; and (2) Delivery of possession of the property gifted'. 3. Briefly stated the facts are: one Mohammed Ibrahim had three wives by name Hameeda Bivi, Balkies Bivi and Omasalama Bivi. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants 8 and 9 are sons of Mohammed Ibrahim by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2427
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. In these Petitions for a writ of mandamus the Petitioner seeks to prevent the Respondents from recovering the amount of Sales-tax held payable by it for the assessment year 1991-92 to 1993-94.2. The Petitioner is a dealer under the Karnataka Sales-tax Act, 1957 dealing in Electronic and Electrical Goods like Television-sets, Washing machines, Air-coolers, Air-Conditioners etc., all manufactured and sold under the Trade name 'Videocon'. For the State of Karnataka it is the sole selling out let for all the products bearing the trade make Videocon; after procuring the same from various manufacturers.3. Assessments for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 were completed by the first-Respondent by three different orders passed by him in that regard. While doing so, the assessing Authority, rejected the claim for exemption made by the petitioner and held that the Sales effected by the petitioner were taxable under Section 5(3-A) read with proviso 3 thereof. Ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2873
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by the son of the original landlord against whom the contesting respondent 3 had filed Form 7 claiming occupancy right to challenge the order dated 16-10-1981 granting occupancy right, copy whereof is at Annexure-A to writ petition.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Smt. Pushpalatha appearing for Sri A. Keshava Bhat. Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 3. The respondent 1-State and the respondent 2-Land Tribunal, Mangalore are served with notices and they remained absent before Court. Sri S.S. Guttal, the learned High Court Government Pleader is therefore directed to take notice for the said two respondents.3. The short point in the writ petition is whether the impugned order passed by the respondent 2-Land Tribunal can sustain for want of notice or not. In the instant case, the learned Government Pleader had secured the records from the Land Tribunal for my perusal. On perusal of the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1998)144CTR(Kar)604
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. Assessment under the Karnataka Agrl. IT Act, for asst. yrs. 1981-82 to 1985-86 were completed against the petitioner by the Agrl. ITO, Madikeri. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Dy. Commr. of Commercial Taxes, Mangalore, and secured ad interim orders of stay against the recovery of the amount subject to the petitioner depositing a part of the amount and securing the balance by way of bank guarantees. The appeals eventually failed and were dismissed by a common order of the Dy. Commissioner dt. 19th of March, 1990. Soon thereafter, the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner were invoked and the balance amount of tax covered by the same collected. The order passed by the Dy. Commissioner was all the same challenged in appeals before the Karnataka Tribunal which too met the same fate and were dismissed by the Tribunal on 3rd of November, 1994. Revision petitions against the Tribunal's order have been filed before this Court which hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2476
G. Patri Basavana Goud, J. 1. The present appellant Narasimhamurthy is the father of deceased Parijatha. The said Parijatha had been married to second respondent herein, Chandrashekar. Chandrashekar was tried in S.C.45/83 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Rural District, for an offence under Section 302 I PC on the charge of having committed the murder of his wife Parijatha as also the child of himself and of Parijatha. The learned Sessions Judge had convicted R-2 of the said offence and had sentenced him to imprisonment for life. In appeal, however, this Court acquitted R-2.2. M.O's-1 to 4 marked during the trial of the sessions case concerned, belonged to deceased Parijatha, and when the learned Sessions Judge convicted R-2, he directed the said M.O's-1 to 4 to be returned to the heirs of Parijatha, Parijatha's father, the present appellant, sought for return of the said M.O's-1 to 4, which prayer came to be negatived by the learned Sessions Judge by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
A.M. Farooq, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order dated 19-4-1997, in Miscellaneous Case No. 23/97 on the file of the learned District Judge, Dakshin Kannada at Mangalore. 2. The appellant herein filed an application before the Lower Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Act') and sought for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents, his men or agents or any person claiming through him from trespassing into or in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of A and B Schedule properties shown in the application. 3. Alongwith the said application, the appellant herein also filed I.A. No. II under Section 9(d) of the Arbitration Act read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, C.P.C. and sought for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction against the respondents and his men. 4. After entertaining the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ381
ORDER1. The short question that falls for consideration in this batch of petitions is whether ramming mass and kalminax sleeves used by the petitioner in the course of manufacture of steel ingots and steel castings, are 'inputs' within the meaning of Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules. The question arises in the following backdrop.2. The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of steel products and has a factory at Baikampady, Mangalore. In the course of the manufacturing process the petitioner makes use of ramming mass and kalminax sleeves as lining material in the electric arc furnace and as insulating material for maintaining the temperature of the molten metal poured intocastings. MODVAT credit for both these items was availed by the petitioner in terms of Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules on the premise that the same were 'Inputs' used in the manufacture of the final product. The Central Excise Authorities were however of the view that the credit availed of by the ...
Tag this Judgment!