Karnataka Court November 1998 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.
Suresh Babu Vs. Smt. S. Susheela Thimmegowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-12-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ580
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J. 1. All these revision petitions relate to eviction proceedings initiated under the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,1961 ('the Act' or 'the KRC Act', for short) filed in respect of non-residential premises, the rent of which exceeds Rs. 500/- per month.2. The revision petitions in HRRP Nos. 423, 425, 465 and 1719 of 1996 and 548 of 1997, are filed by tenants against whom orders of eviction have been passed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act. The revision petitions in HRRP Nos. 438 and 1148 of 1996 are filed by the landlords against the rejection of their eviction petitions filed under Section 21(1)(a)/(h) of the Act. The revision petitions in HRRP Nos. 1415 of 1997 and 12 of 1998 are filed by the tenants aggrieved by the rejection of their interlocutory applications for dismissal of eviction petitions filed against them under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act on the ground that the eviction petitions under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act were not...
Kaveri Water Well Drillers, Bangalore and Others Vs. P. Duraiswamy Gou ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ23
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The short point which falls for consideration is:'Whether proceedings in a suit can be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), referring the parties to get the dispute settled through arbitration as per agreement even when one of the defendants after entering appearance files the written statement thus taking steps in proceedings of the suit'.2. Plaintiff-respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed O.S. No. 1296 of 1990 against defendant-appellants and respondent 3 who was arrayed as defendant 5 in the plaint along with the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants 1 to 4'), seeking dissolution of the partnership firm and directing the defendants to dissolve the partnership, rendering accounts and making payments to which the plaintiffs are ultimately found entitled to. Defendant- respondent 5 who is the son of the first plaintiff entered appearance and filed his written statement...
H. Gopala Gowda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ179
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. Two agriculturists of Channarayapatna Village of Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, had resorted to the instant writ petition as a public interest litigation. In filing the same, they prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the Official Memorandum No. LND/SR/(1)/16/1976-77, dated 25-5-1979, passed by the respondent 5-Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk, Devanahalli, copy as at Annexure-F to writ petition and also for issue of an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to consider the legitimate grievance of the petitioners as enumerated in their representations, copies as at Annexure-B and C to writ petition and further to retain the status quo condition of the gomal land in Sy. No. 163 or for grant of any other appropriate writ.2. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Sundaram appearing along with Sri K.N. Subbareddy, the learned...
Basavaraj Nagoor Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1814; 1999(1)KarLJ488
ORDER1. The petitioner has appeared at the examination held on 30-8-1998 by Karnataka Public Service Commission for the Karnataka Civil Service Group 'A'/'B' post, the result whereof is still awaited. He has questioned the validity of Rule 3-B read with Rule 2(1)(mm) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (in short, the 'Rules') which provide for giving of a weightage of 10% marks to the Rural candidates in giving public employment under the State's Civil Services.2. Pursuant to the powers conferred on the State Government under Section 3 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990), the State Government has made the Karnataka Civil Service (General Recruitment) (Forty-third Amendment) Rules, 1993, whereby it amended the rules by inserting clause (mm) in sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 defining 'Rural Candidate' and an independent Rule 3-B providing for 'weightage of marks to rural candidates' in order to give preference to them in public...
Doctors' Forum (Registered), Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District Vs. Tow ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant122; ILR1999KAR552; 1999(1)KarLJ689
ORDER1. This petition is filed for quashing the Resolution Nos. 166 and 173, dated April 29, 1995 passed by the 1st respondent and published in the newspaper dated May 31, 1995 levying licence fees on nursing homes and clinics with, a further writ in the nature of declaration that the municipality cannot prevent the ratepayers and the members of the petitioner's forum from utilising the garbage disposal infrastructure of the municipality and to dispose of the garbage generated within the limits of the municipality.2. In view of the Resolution Nos. 166 and 173, dated April 29, 1995, the municipality issued a notification dated May 29, 1995 as per Annexure-A and published the same in the various newspapers levying licence fee on nursing homes and clinics along with other items. The petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent not to impose such licence fee as there is no authority of law; for which the municipality in turn replied to the petitioner on July 28, 1995 requesting t...
All India Regional Rural Banks Employees' Association, Bernampur, Dist ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1064; 2000(3)KarLJ157
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the report dated 17th May, 1997 submitted by 5th respondent on salaries, allowances of employees of Regional Rural Banks by issue of writ of certiorari holding that the appointment of the Committee and its recommendations is incompetent, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, contrary to the binding terms of the award dated 30th of April 1990 made by the National Industrial Tribunal and ultra vires the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and opposed to the mandate of Articles 14 , 16(1) and 39(d) of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary and allowances to all the employees of Regional Rural Banks with effectfrom 1-11-1992 in accordance with the pay, allowances and benefits implemented in respect of the employees of Nationalised Commercial Banks as per Memo...
K. Anantharaju Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore Central ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR389; 1999(5)KarLJ343
ORDER1. Power is filed for all the respondents.2. The grievance of the petitioner in these cases is that though this Court directed that a route survey be conducted within 4 months in respect of Writ Petition No. 9012 of 1998 and connected cases, nothing is done, while fresh matters 'are being listed for disposal even without compliance with the directions in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v Pauli Govis and Another , regarding a route survey. Respondents 3 to 7 are seeking permits on a route which is common to the petitioner and the route according to the petitioner is a notified route to a distance of nearly 80 kms. and the applications are, apparently, in contravention of the Kolar Pocket Scheme and therefore, it is necessary to issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ, direction or order not to consider the applications of the respondents at the meeting to be held on 11-11-1998 or at any subsequent meetings and grant permits in favour of the applicants and for such ...
Ramanshree Shopping Arcade Pvt. Ltd. and Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: AIR2000Kant33; [1999]114STC92(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J. 1. All these petitions are disposed of by this common order. The controversy is with regard to the validity of Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries Act, 1979 for levying tax in respect of telephone charges which are alleged to be unreasonable, arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 245, 246 and 300A of the Constitution of India. Section 2(1) of the Act reads as under :'(1) 'Charges for lodging', include charges for air-conditioning, telephone, television, radio, music, extra beds and the like but do not include any charges for food, drink or other amenilies; Luxury has been defined in Section 2(4)B(1) as under 'Luxuries' mean commodities or services specified in the schedule ministering to enjoyment, comfort or pleasure extraordinary to necessities of life.' Luxury provided in a Hotel has beendefined under Section 2(5) of the Act asunder : 'Luxury provided in a hotel' means,-- (i) accommodation for lodging provided in a hotel, the rate o...
H. Gopala Gowda and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4144
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J. 1. Two agriculturists of Channarayapatna village of Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore Rural District, had resorted to the instant Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation. In filing the same, they prayed for issue of a writ, Order or direction in the nature of Certioraris or any other appropriate writ to quash the Official Memorandum No. LND/SR/(1)/ 16/1976-77 dated 25.5.79, passed by the respondent No. 5 Tahsildar, Devanahalli taluk, Devanahalli, copy as at Annexure 'F' td Writ Petition and also for issue of an order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 5 to consider the legitimate grievance of the petitioners as enumerated in their representations, copies as at Annexures 'B' and 'C' to Writ Petition and further to retain the status quo condition of the gomal land in Sy. No. 163 or for grant of any other appropriate writ. 2. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Sundaram appearing along with Sri K.N. Subbare...
C.P. Jagadeesh and Others Vs. the Mysore University and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1595; 1999(2)KarLJ291
ORDER1. The petitioners in these petitions are the students of MBBS course studying in respondent-J.S.S. Medical College. They are aggrieved by the decision of the Syndicate of the respondent Mysore University dated 18-9-1998. On the charge of malpractice their examination of July 1998 has been invalidated and they have been further debarred from taking any of the University examination for one more attempt (subsequent session of the examination). According to the University authorities the petitioners were found guilty of identification of registration number on the answer scripts. Accordingly they were issued show-cause notice requiring them to explain as to why appropriate action should not be taken against them for the said charge. The petitioners appeared before the Malpractices Committee and after perusal of the answer scripts they admitted in writing of identification of registration mark on the answer scripts but according to them it was unintentional.2. I had called for the an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »