Karnataka Court July 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.
B. Vasantharam Sheety Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ493
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in not granting adequate interest at the rate of 16% per annum on the compensation paid for the lands which vested in the Government by virtue of Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ('the Act' for short).2. The facts of the case are that appellant's mother was the widow and she was the owner of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 46/6, 46/7, 46/8, 46/28 and 80/3 of Kannur Village. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act as amended came into force on 1-3-1974. The disputed lands are agricultural lands. There is a tenant on the land. Section 44 of the Act contemplated that all the lands in possession of the tenants immediately prior to the date of commencement of the Amendment Act other than the lands held by them under leases permitted under Section 5, shall stand transferred to and vest in the State Government. In this case there is no dispute that there is a tenant and the same is admit...
The Secretary, Education Department, Bangalore and Another Vs. Vadiraj ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ86
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. These appeals are filed assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by the students who sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider them for admission to B.Ed. course in the State of Karnataka. 2. The facts of the case are, that the petitioners in these petitions are graduates having taken education, philosophy or psychology and other subjects prescribed by the University. They are all qualified after passing their graduation examinations. They applied for admission to B.Ed. course for the academic year 1996-97. Some of the applications of the petitioners were rejected and some candidates were not considered on the ground that the petitioners are not qualified as they are not having qualifications according to Rule 3(b) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for admission to Teachers Certificate Higher Course (T.C.H.) and Bachelor of Education Course (B.Ed.) 1996 (hereinafter called th...
M/S. N.G.E.F. Limited Bangalore Vs. the Collector of Customs (Appeals) ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(104)ELT628(Kar); 1999(1)KarLJ247
ORDER1. The only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether a claim for refund of duty paid pursuant to assessments order made under the Customs Act, 1962, can be maintained de hors theprovisions of Section 27 of the said Act and beyond the period prescribed therein. The question arises in the following circumstances.2. The petitioner is a public sector undertaking who imported MICA-tapes and samicatherm wrappers falling under Customs Tariff Entry 6814.90 and Central Excise Tariff Entry No. 6807.00. Besides the customs duty payable on the imports, the petitioner also paid countervailing duty amounting to Rs. 2,14,875/-. This payment was made pursuant to five different orders of assessment made by the Customs Authority on the arrival of the imported material on the Indian shores. No objection, it is significant was at any stage raised by the petitioner either as to its liability to pay the said duty or the extent thereof. AH the same, more than three years af...
Obayya Pujary and Others Vs. the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Pol ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ651
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The air we breathe, is a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen with minor constituents like carbon dioxide and trap gases. Pollutants are substances which are not normally present in the air. Pollutants in the form of dust, smoke, industrial and automobile exhaust, gaseous and particulate matters, though not normally expected to be present, yet are found in the air. Nature and amount of such pollutants varies from place to place depending upon population, vehicular density and location of industrial units etc. Lungs are the major organs affected by the air pollution. The spectrum of functional and pathological reactions of the lungs to various exposures is wide. Chronic bronchitis and airways obstruction is the result of long term exposure to air pollution. Organic matters including dust can cause the allergic reactions producing allergic alveolitis. Inorganic dust may get deposited in the lungs and produce fibrosis. Exposure to dust may lower the lung defences and cle...
G.V. Sreerama Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR2667
ORDER1. In this public interest litigation the petitioner, who is claiming to be a political worker dedicated himself to the cause of ameliorating the conditions of the poor and downtrodden and having worked among the students, youths and peasants during the relevant periods, has sought for quashing of the Government Order at Annexure-F dated 27-3-1997 by which the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 56 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') had accorded working permission to the 4th respondent M/s. Gem Granites for undertaking quarrying activities in an extent of 266 acres in Sy. Nos. 293/1B1; and 296/1A of Balakundi Village, Hungund Taluk, Bijapur District, for a period of two years or until the litigation is finally decided by the Courts. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the first respondent to recover the loss caused by the 4th respondent to the Government and to order for C.B.I, enqu...
Smt. Vijaya Devi Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(5)KarLJ498
ORDER1. No orders are necessary on LA. No. I. since the ad interim stay was only for a period of 12 weeks from 10-11-1997 which period has since elapsed, the stay is therefore no longer in operation. As far as the main petition is concerned, I have heard the learned contesting Counsel on both sides principally because once the stay is vacated, the question would arise as to whether anything survives in the main petition and whether it should be kept pending. In this case, on hearing the petitioner's learned Advocate, I find that as far as the merits are concerned, that the Court has, as of necessity, to examine the case. Two points are raised, the first being that there is no claim made in respect of Sy. No. 200 and the second point is that the application for amendments increasing the area from 1.30 acres to 4.52 acres was made after the remand by the High Court long after 30-6-1979. Petitioner's learned Advocate submits that unless the Form 7 conforms to the requirements of law insof...
Karnataka Jewels Limited Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Commerc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: [2001]121STC214(Kar)
ORDERS.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated October 13, 1995 in S.T.A. No. 1093 of 1994 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. On August 6, 1992, a Maruti van bearing No. CAT 1717 was intercepted at about 12 noon and inspected by Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Hosur Road, Commercial Tax Check Post, Attibele. At that time the car was found to be carrying 11,400 watch dials as against 7,185 watch dials noted in the delivery note bearing No. 41103 in form No. 39. The first respondent having found that there was variance between the delivery note referred to above and the goods carried in the van, regarding the number of dials, notice under Section 28A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short) was issued proposing a penalty of Rs. 86,482. The revision petitioner did not show any cause to the notice. Consequently a penalty of Rs. 86,482 was levied and communicated to him on August 9, 1992.3. The pe...
K. Raja Rao Vs. Syndicate Bank and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4044
ORDERV. Gopalagowda, J. 1. The petitioner in this case is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in No. 41/PD-IRD/DA-7 dated 24.4.90 Annexure-E to the Writ Petition, in which order the order of removal passed by the 3rd respondent was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Further the petitioner has sought for a direction to the first respondent Bank to reinstate the petitioner in his post with all consequential benefits, urging the following facts and legal contentions.2. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Farm Representative and he has reported for duty on 1.4.1980 at Staff Training College, Udupi. Initially the appointment was for a period of 2 years on Probation. After successful completion of his Probationary Period, his services were confirmed by the first respondent Bank.3. The 3rd respondent issued the charge sheet dated 17.9.1985 in exercise of his power conferred under Regulations-6 of the Syndicate Bank Officer E...
Gajanan Seshappa Hegde Vs. Venkatraman Sheshappa Hegde and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ462
ORDER1. This civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the order dated 2-7-1993 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sirsi, on I.A.VII taking the view that the document is not admissible in evidence in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Trial Court opined that the document is not registered and Section 49 prevents from its being admitted. The Court opined that no doubt partition may be oral, but if it is reduced in the form of a document effecting the division of properties and contains terms of bargain, it requires to be registered and once it was not registered, it was inadmissible. But it also held that it may be used for collateral purpose. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the defendants have come up before this Court under Section 115.2. A preliminary objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the revision on behalf of the respondents by Sri R.V. Jayaprakash. Learned Counsel contended that the order in question does not amount to a case decided. It may...
Narayana Rao Vs. State Bank of India, Humnabad Branch, Bidar District
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ411
ORDER1. This revision application under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the judgment and order dated 4-8-1994 passed by the Hon'ble Civil Judge B. Kalyan in Execution Petition No. 8 of 1993 rejecting LA. I. filed by the judgment-debtor wherein he prayed for release of tractor on the ground that attachment was wrongly made. The Court rejected the application. While rejecting the application, the Trial Court held that executable decree was passed on 30-3-1988. No doubt preliminary decree has been passed on 7-1-1986 and final decree could only be passed on 30-3-1988. As such, the execution petition had been filed within two years from the date of decree and therefore under Rule 22 it was not necessary to issue a notice. It further held that the judgment-debtor had sufficient knowledge of issue of warrant of sale. The Court below also held that the tractor in question was attached from the custody of one Ramakrishna, Manager, Earth-movers Company in Bhalki Taluk and therefore it held th...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »