Karnataka Court June 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.
Smt. Sumabai @ Suman and Others Vs. Basagouda Rama Sankapal and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ393
ORDER1. This revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 27-1-1994, delivered by Principal Munsiff, Chikodi, in Miscellaneous Case No. 48 of 1989, rejecting the applicants application under Order 20, Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code and under Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code as not maintainable. Learned Munsiff has taken the view that the legal heirs of the deceased defendant 3 has not been made party to this proceedings, and the decree which was affirmed by the Appellate Courts cannot be modified by the Trial Court. It also opined that the decree of the Appellate Court became final and it could not be open to him to modify that decree.2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that the suit for partition had been filed namely Suit No. 20 of 1972. It was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi, whereunder 1/5th share was allotted to the deceased Sundarabai and similar share to others. Preliminary decree was passed by the Civil Judge and the matter, it h...
Sudarshan Pine Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Additional Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-10-1998
Reported in: [1998]111STC740(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Sinhal, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) dated May 18, 1998. The appellate authority directed the petitioner to deposit 50 per cent of the total amount of Rs. 11,64,578. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already made the payment of Rs. 8,26,739 which should have been taken into consideration while passing the order on the stay application.2. It is stated that no reasons have been assigned by the appellate authority and the order of the appellate authority is contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of B.M. Moidin Kunhi v. State of Mysore [1971] 27 STC 154 wherein it was observed :'In the instant case, the assessee in his application for stay had submitted that he had no cash resources, that the amount involved in the three appeals was large and that he was offering security of immovable properties situated in two villages of Sullia Taluk in South Kanara ...
The Karnataka State Co-operative Urban Banks Federation Limited, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ157
ORDER1. The writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties. In this writ petition the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') notified on 12-12-1997 at Annexure-E is being challenged. The amendment is with respect to Rule 17.2. In Rule 17 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 in sub-rule (1) for the word 'Registrar' the word 'Government' was to be substituted. The 1st petitioner is a Federation. The 2nd and 3rd petitionerare the members of the member societies of the 1st petitioner-Federation.3. Various grounds have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Billappa. It was submitted that the amendment to the Rule under challenge is irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary and it gives unguided and unlimited power to the Government. It was also submitted that the Registrar was looking after the affairs of the Societies for a number of years and now unnecessary burden i...
Veerannaiah Vs. Sree Hoisala Vidya SamsThe (Registered), Belur Taluk, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2446; 1998(4)KarLJ512
ORDER1. The petitioner was working as a Head Master in the respondent-school. The respondent-institution is an aided institution. The petitioner was suspended by the respondent by an order dated 1-8-1994. This order of suspension was challenged in M.A. No. 25 of 1994. The petitioner in the M.A. No. 25 of 1994 filed an application seeking payment of subsistence allowance. The Tribunal rejected the application. The reason given by the Tribunal was that it is the State Government that has to pay the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and not the management.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 4th July, 1996 is contrary to the law. Tbe learned Counsel submitted that it was a grant-in-aid school and as per the Grant-in-aid Code the subsistence allowance should be paid by the institution and reimbursed to the institution from the Government. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Shivaji High School v Prabha...
The Karnataka State Co-operative Urban Banks Federation Ltd. and ors. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-09-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3487
ORDERKumar Rajaratnam, J.1. The Writ Petition is taken up with the consent of parties. In this Writ Petition the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) notified on 12.12.1997 at Annexure-E is being challenged. The amendment is with respect to Rule 17. 2. In Rule 17 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 in Sub-rule (1) for the word 'Registrar' the word 'Government' was to be substituted. The 1st petitioner is a Federation. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the members of the member societies of the 1st petitioner-Federation. 3. Various grounds have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Billappa. It was submitted that the amendment to the Rule under challenge is irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary and it gives unguided and unlimited power to the Government. It was also submitted that the Registrar was looking after the affairs of the societies for a number of years and no...
M/S. Tapoban Housing Finance Limited, New Delhi Vs. R. Udaya Kumar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas549(Kar); 1998(5)KarLJ619
ORDER1. This revision application arises from the order dated 5-11-1993. The order sheet says on 5-11-1993 the decree-holder is present. Notice was issued to the judgment-debtor. Judgment-debtor absent and orders attachment of movables by 21-1-1994. From this order, the revision has been preferred. 2. Sri J.P. Udgata, learned Counsel for the revisionist is present. Respondent is served. But none appears on his behalf though the Counsel's name has been shown as Sri L. Govindaraju. I have revised the list twice. So I have started to hear Sri J.P. Udgata, learned Counsel for the revisionist. 3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist's submission is of two folds. One is that order indicates that Court notice was issued to the judgment-debtor. But it is no where indicated that whether the Court has verified that the notice has been served or not. Learned Counsel states that really notice has been served on the judgment-debtor and the judgment-debtor appeared before the Court and requested the ...
Narayan Swamy G.V. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ279
ORDER1. This writ petition is directed against the Order No. 469/LMC/CUO/Fd/51/Adm(Rel-4), dated 26-8-1994 issued by the third respondent. Acting on the said order of the third respondent the fourth respondent, Officer commanding petitioner's unit, has discharged the petitioner from services.2. Sri Ashok Harnahalli, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, has raised a preliminary objection questioning the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present writ petition in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, which reads as follows:'Article 226(2): The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within tho...
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.P. Iv, Ramdurg Vs. Padiyappa G ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ210
ORDER1. The application for condonation of delay is allowed and the C.Ps are taken up for final disposal. 2. In all these civil petitions a short question that arises for consideration is whether the claimants-respondents would be entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is settled law by a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in KS. Paripoornan v State of Kerala and Others . The Supreme Court in the said case has held that those awards passed prior to 30-4-1982 would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. In all these cases, the awards were passed on 31-7-1981. In that view of the matter, the review petitions are allowed and the awards are modified to the extent that the claimants-respondents would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Hence, the C.Ps are allowed and the C.R.Ps are restored and for the reasons stated above the C.R.Ps are allowed. The orders o...
M/S. Albahar Shipping Company, Mangalore and Others Vs. the Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas655(Kar); 1998(5)KarLJ601
ORDER1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the judgment and order dated July 3, 1993-delivered by B. Padmaraj, District Judge, Dakshina Kannada, dismissing the appeal filed by the revisionist-applicant from the judgment and order dated 16-4-1993 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore, on LA, No. II rejecting the application for temporary injunction in Original Suit No. 24 of 1992. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been contended that without following the due procedure of law as laid down by the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979, the 1st defendant i.e., respondent 1-The Karnataka State Financial Corporation intends to sell the applicant's property mentioned in the schedule to the application and the 3rd defendant i.e., the Special Tahsildar of the Karnataka State Financial Corporation has got the notice published on 7-1-1992 whereby sale of applicants' property mentioned in Schedule has been proposed by auction. ...
The Assistant Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chitr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jun-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ436
ORDER1. I.A. No. III is for condonation of delay in bringing the legal representatives of the first respondent on record.I.A. No. IV is for setting aside the abatement. I.A. No. V is for bringing the legal heirs of the first respondent. Heard both the sides. LA. Nos. III, IV and V are allowed. The petitioner is directed to amend the cause title.2. The civil revision petition is taken up with the consent of parties.3. Learned Counsel for the second and third respondents is also heard. He takes notice for the legal representatives of the first respondent.4. The State is being aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Civil Judge at Chitradurga in Miscellaneous Case No. 57 of 1994, dated 10-4-1995 has referred this civil revision petition.5. The brief facts are; The learned Civil Judge passed an award on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3-7-1982 in LAC No. 30 of 1980. By virtue of the amendment to the Land Acquisition Act No. 68 of 1984 certain additional benefi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »