Karnataka Court October 1998 Judgments
S. Shekhar Vs. Commissioner and Returning Officer, Bangalore City Corp ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ98
Acts/Rules/Orders:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1, Rule 9 - Order 1, Rule 10 - Order 3, Rules 1 and 4(1) - Order 4, Rule 1 - Order 33, Rule 3;Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Section 2(5), 14, 16, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 35, 70, 81, 82, 86, 87, 100, 101 and 117(1);Constitution vide (Seventy-fourth) Amendment Act, 1992;Karnataka General Clauses Act - Section 10;Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Section 5;Karnataka Municipal Election Rules - Rule 77(4)Cases Referred:Siddaiah v. Returning Officer, Corporation of the City of Bangalore, 1987(2) Kar. L.J. Sh. N. 315, ILR 1987 Kar. 595;K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar and Others, AIR 1958 SC 687;B. Okkadakatti v. H.G. Dwarkanath Khadju, ILR 1980 Kar. 334;Suresh Krishnaji and Others v. Shankarappa and Another, 1983(1) Kar. L.J. 404, AIR 1983 Kant. 226;Heera Bai Genda Lal v. Bhagirath Ramchandra and Co,pany, AIR 1946 Bom. 174;Nawab Khan v. Vishwanath Shastry, AIR 1993 All. 104;Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India...
Tag this Judgment!MoIn Ahmed Sheriff Vs. Vice-chancellor, University of Mysore and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ106
ORDER1. The petitioner was an aspirant for admission to MBA Course run by the respondent-University for the academic year 1998-99. He wanted a seat in the NCC quota. But, that seat was given to the 4th respondent keeping in view her ranking in the merit list of the candidates who were entitled to be considered against the said quota. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to provide him with the seat in the Course in question. 2. Admissions to the MBA Course is governed by the regulations framed by the respondent-University under Section 35 read with Section 36 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for short, the 'Act'). The said regulation was published under notification dated 5-1-1994 have been placed at Annexure-A. As per the said regulations, the selection of candidates has to be made by a Committee constituted thereunder on the basis of inter se merits of the candidates as per the entrance test conducted unde...
Tag this Judgment!Panchaxari Shidramappa Yeligar Vs. Shiggaon Taluka Shikshana Samithi a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: 2000(5)KarLJ174
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad, on an appeal filed under Section 8 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 ('the Act' for short).2. From 1989, orders of Educational Appellate Tribunals have been challenged by filing revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, having regard to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Excellent Education Society and Others v Smt. G. Shahida Begum and Others.3. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Excellent Education Society and Others v Smt. G. Shahida Begum and Others, and connected cases had considered the question whether an order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal should be challenged by filing a civil revision petition or by filing a writ petition. By order dated 16-6-1987, he held that such orders are revisable under Section 115 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. Deputy Regional Director, E.S.i. Corporation
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ213Kant
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. The Mysore Kirloskar, Ltd., a public limited company the appellant, filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the Employees' Insurance Court, Hubli. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a public limited company, incorporated under the Mysore Companies Act, 1938, and an existing company within the meaning of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956, and carries on business of manufacturing of machine tools and foundry products and sale of the same. The appellant-company has employed about 4,300 employees in its establishment and covered by the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act and is making contributions in accordance with law and the provisions made thereunder.3. The appellant-management has voluntarily introduced an incentive scheme, reserving right to alter, modify, revise or withdraw the same. Accordingly, the company is paying incentive payment to the workmen of the company. In the year 1968, the respondent-Corporation informed...
Tag this Judgment!Panchaxari Shidramappa Yeligar Vs. Shiggaon Taluka Shikshana Samithi a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3748
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad, on an appeal filed under Section 8 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 ('the Act' for short).2. From 1989, orders of Educational Appellate Tribunals have been challenged by filing Revision Petitions under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, having regard to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in EXCELLENT EDUCATION SOCIETY v. SHAHIDA BEGUM, W.A. Nos. 1101 - 03/1987 dt. 30.5.1989.3. A Learned Single Judge of this Court in EXCELLENT EDUCATION SOCIETY v. SHAHIDA BEGUM, W.P. Nos. 18578-80/1979 and connected cases had considered the question whether an order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal should be challenged by filing a Civil Revision Petition or by filing a Writ Petition. By order dated 16.6.1987, he held that such orders are revisable under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Padma Khaitan Vs. the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR849; 2000(1)KarLJ546
ORDER1. By sale deed dated 10-10-1984, the petitioner purchased 0-13 guntas of land in Sy. No. 54 and 3 acres 8 guntas of land in Sy. No. 53/1-A of Turahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli. The Tahsildar issued Annexure-d, an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/- for failure to furnish a declaration under Sections 79A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and directed that the Revenue Inspector should recover the penalty of Rs. 500/- from the date of service of the notice. The petitioner challenged the order Annexure-D in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore, who dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, an appeal under Section 118 of the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which allowed the appeal, set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore, for fresh disposal in accordance with law.2. In this writ petition, the order of the remand is challenged as without jurisdiction. The main contention b...
Tag this Judgment!Vishkantegowda and Others Vs. State by Kamakshipalya Police, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)495; ILR1999KAR4123; 1999(3)KarLJ670
1. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-1-1994 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore have preferred this appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the same. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W. 1-Sub-Inspector attached to Food Cell, Bangalore on 2-11-1990 at about 11 a.m got credible information that rice was being smuggled in Kamakshipalya and in the surrounding areas. As such P.W. 1 was waiting along with panchas near Shivananda stores in Kamakshipalya at about 12 noon. At about 1.00 p.m. a lorry came from North to South which was loaded with rice bags. P.W. 1 checked the lorry bearing No. MYN 4427 which contained 36 bags, each containing 100 kgs. of rice, 13 bags each containing 35 kgs. of rice. Accused 1, accused 2 and accused 4 ran away on seeing P.S.I.-P.W. 1. Accused 3 was caught by P.W. 1 and his staff. P.W. 1 made an enquiry and no document was produced. Hence he seized the lorry and the rice bags, and the mahazar ...
Tag this Judgment!Venugopala Reddy M. Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1206Kant
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is a contractor. He is seeking to quash Annexure-A dated July 17, 1998 by which the petitioner was called upon to furnish his own and E.S.I. and P.P. Code numbers to consider his request for issue of tender document. It is contended that inspite of 2nd respondent confirming that such separate code numbers are not required, the condition is imposed and the same is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that refusal to give tender forms for non-furnishing separate code numbers is violative of principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is also contended that the imposition of the condition is contrary to Section 30 of the Employees Provident Fund Act.2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed their respective counters. The main stand taken by the first respondent is that it has been exempted from extending the statutory benefits to contract workers unde...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Tuljabhavani Devasthana Kendra Pancha Samithi, Hubli Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR143; 1999(6)KarLJ637
ORDER1. The petitioner is a Religious' Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is stated that the Trust is utilising the amount collected for the development of the temple and for the construction of buildings. The Trust has got property at Chattnimath on Chanpet Road, Hubli, District Dharwad and constructing buildings to accommodate the visitors. For the purpose of augmenting the income of the Temple the Trust started the construction work after applying for the licence to the 2nd respondent-Corporation. The said construction was sought to be removed on the ground that it was an unauthorised construction and without obtaining the proper sanctioned plan.2. Thereafter, the petitioner applied as per Annexure-A requesting the Corporation to regularise the construction. In pursuance of the said representation the matter was referred to the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation in Item No. 789 on 21-10-1991. The same was resolved to the effect that the constru...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnappa Poojary Vs. N.V. Rangappaiah (Deceased)by L.R. and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1932; 2000(3)KarLJ579
ORDER1. This is a tenant's revision petition filed as against the order dated 31-3-1990 passed in L.R.A.A. No. 125 of 1988 by the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Puttur, in passing whereof, the Appellate Authority while setting aside the order dated 27-5-1988 passed by the Land Tribunal, Sullia, granting occupancy right to the petitioner, conferred the occupancy right in the name of the respondent 1.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, the learned Counsel, Smt. S.N. Sudha, appearing along with Sri G.S. Vishweshwara for the respondent 1 and the learned AdditionalGovernment Advocate, Sri S. Mahesh, appearing for the respondent 3, Land Tribunal, Sullia. I have perused the case records together with the records of the Land Tribunal secured fay the Registry.3. The facts of the case relevant for our purpose have to be narrated in brief, the same are as hereunder.-That the respondent 1 had filed Form No. 7 setting out 22 extents in differ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »