Karnataka Court July 1998 Judgments
Mallappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ660
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsels for both parties.2. The bone of contention between the parties is the land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 7 in Hadigere Village, Tarikere Taluk of Chickmagalur District. It was granted under darkhast to H.M. Basappa on 4-9-1962 by the Government with a condition imposed on the grant that the granted land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. In breach of the said condition the land was purchased on 29-4-1966 by the father of petitioners, named Marappa. Thereafter, the purchaser and the grantee died. On the death of grantee, his son respondent No. 4 made an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act for the resumption of the lands asserting that the said land was alienated to said Marappa by his (respondent 4's) late father in breach of said non-alienation condition. On enquiry, the order Annexure-B dated 6-5-1987 was passed...
Tag this Judgment!Times Publishing House Ltd. Vs. the Financial Times Ltd. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3212
ORDERN.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This is a defendant's revision being aggrieved of the order passed on I.A.No. 17 by the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No. 7087/93 rejecting the application.2. The brief facts are as follows:The plaintiff-Financial Times Ltd., London (for short London) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-Times Publishing House Ltd., Bangalore restraining them from printing, publishing or in any manner using in relation to any news paper publication, magazine, periodicals of stationary bearing impugned trade mark Financial Times, for damages and for other costs and reliefs.3. Defendant No. 1 entered appearance and filed detailed written statement running to 41 pages. In the said suit, the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC praying for injunction restraining the defendants from publishing any such news papers. The injunction was granted. As against the grant of order of injunction, the defendant h...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Kempaiah
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ4070
S.S. Mohammed Quadri, J.1. Leave is granted.2. In these appeals, filed by the State of Karnataka against the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 16857 of 1993 and Criminal Petition No. 1155 of 1993, only that part of the judgment is assailed; which deals with the interpretation of 'action' as defined in Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the K. L. Act').3. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be necessary to icier to the facts giving rise to these appeals. On 17-12-92, an unsigned representation containing allegations against certain Government officers including the respondent, Kampaiah, an IPS Officer, who was working as Deputy Commissioner of Police, East, Bangalore, during the relevant period, was forwarded by the Under Secretary to the Governor of Karnataka to the Registrar, Lokayukta for taking necessary action. The Upa...
Tag this Judgment!Balasahed and Others Vs. the Tahsildar, Chikodi, Belgaum District and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ252
ORDER1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 30-8-1996 of respondent 1-Tahsildar, Chikodi in the District of Belgaum in No. WTN/Cr. (53)131 of 1995-96, Annexure-A is the order. Tahsildar, by the said order has directed eviction of the petitioners from the land ad-measuring 8-38 acres in Sy. No. 400/1+2 of Kurli Village in Chikodi Taluk, old number being 586/1+2 of Appachiwadi Village and to put respondents 2 to 7 in possession of the said land. This order is made in exercise of the powers under Sections 5 and 7 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, Tahsildar has said that this order is subject to the decision in civil suit pending before the Civil Court.2. It is undisputed that the land in dispute was attached to the village office of Sanadi and one Naru Sanadi was the holder of this office. He died leaving behind him two sons by...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Basavarajappa Vs. S.N. Manjunatha and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ32
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises from the judgment and order dated 8-2-1994 passed by Civil Judge, Arasikere on an Application I.A. I under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, moved in R.A. No. 20 of 1992, rejecting that application after having opined that the appellant has failed to show or to make out a case to permit him to adduce additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC. It is further observed that the approach of the appellant seeking the relief for production of additional evidence is not fair and honest. The lower Appellate Court has further observed in its order that the plaintiff's application is not of an ordinary prudent man, but he is a School Teacher. If he is required to sell property under some deed, he would not have forgotten to mention the said fact that he would not have forgotten to produce the said document in support of his case so as to establish his own title. It a...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Shivakumar Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ342
ORDER1. Heard Mr. K. Hiriyanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. V. Vidya, learned H.C.G.P. for respondent 1 and Mr. S. Basavaraj, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.2. The present writ petition is directed against the corrigendum dated 2-7-1996 (Annexure-D) issued by the 2nd respondent substituting the consolidated pay of Rs. 3,850/- per month instead of the time pay scale of 1520-40-1800-50-2300-75-2900 as mentioned in the order dated 15-5-1996 (Annexure-B). The second prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 2nd respondent to modify the order dated 6-4-1998 (Annexure-G) providing for 'deputation' of the services of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent-Airport Authority.3. The Metropolitan Commissioner (respondent 2) of the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (in short, the 'BMRDA') under his order dated 15-5-1996 (Annexure-B) appointed the petitioner along with Ms. Kalaivani as draughtsman for a period of six months. Then appointments were made...
Tag this Judgment!J.M. Eswaraiah and Others Vs. Subramanya and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3588; 2000(2)KarLJ491
ORDER1. The petitioners herein and one Channeshaiah, filed five eviction petitions in HRC Nos. 71, 103, 85, 87 and 73 of 1987, on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Shimoga, against the respondents in these five revision petitions under clauses (a) and (j) of the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'Act').2. The respondent in each of these petitions resisted the said petitions, inter alia, on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and that they were the tenants of Jadeveramath and were paying the rents to the said Math.3. After evidence, the Trial Court allowed the eviction petitions under clauses (a) and (j) by a common order dated 4-3-1996, after holding that the petitioners had proved the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenants, with each of the respondents.4. Feeling aggrieved, the respective respondent in the said five eviction petitions, filed revision petitions under Section 50(2) o...
Tag this Judgment!P. Srinivasa Ramachander Vs. Central Machine Tools Institute, Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ337
1. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent 1 dated 17-10-1991 dispensing with his service, the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court praying for declaring some clauses in Annexure-A as void being opposed to the public policy. He also prayed to declare him to be continuously in service of the first respondent and that the impugned orders in Annexure-H to O did not affect his service career. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned in this appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge has been challenged on various grounds as detailed in the memorandum of appeal. It is contended that under the circumstances, peculiar in the case, the appellant stood permanently appointed and was not a probationer which could have authorised the respondent 1 to pass the impugned order.2. The record reveals that the appellant was intimated of his selection for appointment as 'Senior Administrative Officer in the Institute on the terms and conditions speci...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. I.T.i. Employees Death and Superannuati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Kar)530; ILR1998KAR3267; [1998]234ITR308(KAR); [1998]234ITR308(Karn)
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. This order shall dispose of ITRC Nos. 30-31 of 1995, ITRC Nos. 32-33 of 1995, ITRC Nos. 34-35 of 1995 and ITRC Nos. 36-37 of 1995, arising from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), dated June 15, 1993, relating to the assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1988-89 and 1989-90. The Revenue as well as the assessee have claimed one question each in all the assessment years thereby giving rise to eight reference petitions. The Tribunal has disposed of eight appeals relating to the four assessment years by passing one order as the facts and the questions of law involved are the same. Since common issues arise for consideration arising from the same facts in all these petitions, we also dispose of them by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The trust styled 'the Indian Telephone Industries Employees' Death and Superannuation Relief Fund' was created by a deed dated December 19, 1983, by the employees of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Satishchandra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR70(KAR); [1998]234ITR70(Karn)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. For the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, for short 'the Tribunal', has referred the following question of law to this court with appropriate statement of case. As the issue involved in the appeals before the Tribunal was the same, the appeals were, for the sake of convenience, consolidated and heard together. One common order was passed in all the appeals. The reference applications were also disposed of by a common order and therefore this order shall dispose of the reference petitions for all the three years by a common order :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order dated December 3, 1985, under Section 154 for the assessment year in question ?'The assessee is an arrack contractor. It has been assessed in the status of unregistered firm. In the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 completed by the Income-tax Officer, on February 15, 198...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »