Karnataka Court July 1998 Judgments
K.R. Divya Shree and Others Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Health University, Bangal ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ187
ORDER1. The petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions are all 1st year MBBS students studying in different Medical Colleges in the State. They appeared for the 1st MBBS examination conducted by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences between 11th of May, 1998 and 25th of May, 1998. Results of the examination announced on 11th of June, 1998 showed that out of a total 2,071 candidates, 638 had failed, majority of them because of their failure to pass in Bio-Chemistry. The failures appear to have approached the University seeking re-valuation of their answer scripts, award of grace marks and introduction of the carry over system to enable them to join the II Phase of the Course. The University declined this request on the ground that the regulations governing the Course did not permit either re-valuation of the answer scripts or the carry over system. On the basis of the recommendations of a Committee appointed for the purpose, the students were given the benefit of what is termed as...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chandrashekar and Others Vs. Bangalore City Corporation, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant18; ILR1999KAR170; 1999(2)KarLJ466
ORDER1. The petitioners in all these petitions have sought for quashing of the demand notice issued by the Bangalore City Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and a resolution resolving to collect surcharge at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. ft. in respect of premises measuring 30' x 40' and in respect of area less than 30' x 40' at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. Some of the petitioners have also sought for refund of the amount already collected towards Cauvery Water Supply IV Stage (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme').2. In all these petitions, the question that arises for consideration is: Whether the Corporation has the authority to collect money by way of cases fee or surcharge towards implementation of the Scheme?3. The facts of the cases are.-The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has undertaken the work of Cauvery 3rd Stage Water Supply Scheme in order to provide water to the residents of Bangalore City. But...
Tag this Judgment!State by Aldur Police, Chickmagalur District Vs. A.P. Puttaswamy Gowda ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)386; ILR1999KAR1424; 1998(5)KarLJ448
Chidananda Ullal, J.1.These two appeals are interconnected. The first appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction of the respondents for the lesser or minor offences under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and further as against their release under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.O. Act') by execution of a bond for one year to maintain good conduct, when the original charge as against them was under Sections 341, 324 and 307 of IPC whereas the second appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur under Section 307 of IPC. Both the appeals are filed by the State represented by the learned State Public Prosecutor.2. We heard the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and the learned Counsel, Sri B.R. Deshpande appearing alongwith Sri Sampath Anand Shetty for the r...
Tag this Judgment!Sateppa Basappa Paschapuri Vs. Kum. Geetha
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)430; 1999CriLJ927; I(1999)DMC565; ILR1998KAR3068; 1998(5)KarLJ522
ORDER1. This criminal revision petition has been placed before us to decide whether the order passed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (henceforth in brief referred to for convenience as 'the Act') by the Family Court has to be challenged either as a civil revision petition or as a criminal revision petition and has to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court under the provisions of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Such a situation had occurred before the learned Single Judge of this Court in view of the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Sathyabhama v Ramachandran, wherein it was held that for the purpose of Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act (as amended in 1991), the Family Court acted as a Criminal Court and not as a Civil Court and in that view of the matter, the revision petitions to challenge the orders under the said provision of law has to be registered as revision petition (Family Court) liable to be disposed of ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sevanti Vs. the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Banga ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3082; 1998(5)KarLJ652
ORDER1. Heard Mr. S.P. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents.2. The present writ petition is directed against the letter dated 17-1-1998 (Annexure-C) written by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent informing him that the claim of the petitioner for an appointment on compassionate ground in the establishment of respondent-authorities stands rejected.3. The petitioner is the widow of one late Sri Chidananda Bagoji, peon in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gokak, Belgaum District, who died on 29-9-1996 in harness leaving behind him the petitioner and three minor children as evidenced by survivorship Certificate dated 28-9-1996 (Annexure-B) issued by the jurisdictional Tahsildar.4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, subsequent to death of her husband, late Chidananda Bagoji, filed an application for grant of an appointment on compassionate ground keeping...
Tag this Judgment!K. Premananda and Another Vs. Syndicate Bank, Millers Road, Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas128(Kar); 1999(5)KarLJ456
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act arises from the judgment and decree dated 31-10-1994 passed in Small Causes Case No. 6556 of 1993 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,401-50 ps. with costs and current interest at the rate of 18.5% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realisation.2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the defendants had taken the plea that the suit is barred by limitation as it has been filed beyond three years period of limitation as under Article 19. Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the plaintiff had acknowledged the liability to pay the suit debt by means of a letter dated 9-5-1985. Respondent's Counsel contended that payments had been made on various dates and so the suit was within limitation. Learned Counsel also contended that there was material on record to show plea raised and eviden...
Tag this Judgment!Nishanth Hiremath Vs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4237
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. In this bunch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners have called in question the validity of an order dated 22nd October, 1997, issued by the State Government, whereby tuition fee chargeable from candidates admitted to Medical and Dental Colleges in the State has been prescribed under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984. They have also assailed the validity of orders dated 15th and 16th of May 1997, issued by the Government of India in terms of Regulations framed under the India Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Dentist Act, prescribing tuition fee payable by students admitted to Private Medical and Dental Colleges in the free and payment seats category. In two of the petitions viz., W.P. No. 21552/98 filed by the Medical College Association and W.P. No. 21655/1998 filed by the Dental College Association, a declaration to the effect that the Central Government alone is competent to prescribe the fee structure under th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka Vs. A.P. Puttaswamy Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-31-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)289; 1999CriLJ708
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. These two appeals are interconnected. The first appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction of the respondents for the lesser or minor offences under Section 326 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and further as against their release under Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.O. Act') by execution of a bond for one year to maintain good conduct, when the original charge as against them was Under Sections 341, 324 and 307 of IPC whereas the second appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur Under Section 307 of IPC. Both the appeals are filed by the State represented by the learned SPP.2. We heard the learned SPP appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and the learned counsel, Sri B. R. Deshpande appearing along with Sri Sampath Anand Shetty for the respondents-accused. We have also peru...
Tag this Judgment!D.M. Nagaraja Setty Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas498(Kar); 2000(1)KarLJ595
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition thereby upholding the notification Annexure-A amalgamating Vysya Co-operative Bank Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor Bank') with the Industrial Co-operative Bank Limited, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferee Bank') and Annexure-E, dated 31-7-1985, declining absorption of the appellant by the transferee bank on the plea of not being desirable, has filed this appeal.2. Transferor bank was under moratorium pursuant to an order made by the Government of India on 12th June, 1981 in terms of Section 45 read with Section 56(zb) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 being in certain financial problems and attendant question arising thereto. Registrar of Co-operative Societies formulated a scheme as provided under Section 14B of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proposing to amalgamate the transferor and transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Venkatesh Pandit Vs. Syed NuroddIn Khadri
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ449
ORDER1. This revision under Section 18 of the Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act arises from the judgment and decree dated 25-3-1994 passed by the Civil Judge, Haveri dismissing the plaintiffs suit with costs, taking a view that there is no evidence, oral or documentary to the effect that the defendant had taken any loan or sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff and made a promise to pay back Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has paid Rs. 10,000/- as returnable by defendant to the plaintiff. It further held that a suit is based on no document, hence it is not tenable to resolve and the suit is dismissed.2. Facts of the case in brief are that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs, 10,000/- along with interest thereon i.e., for a total sum of Rs. 11.350/- The plaintiffs case has been that the defendant has been very familiar and friendly with the plaintiff for a good long period. The defendant had one time being in financial difficulties approached the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »