Karnataka Court July 1998 Judgments

Miss. Gopalam Mithula Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1998KAR3770

ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J. 1. An interesting question of considerable importance arises for consideration in these two writ petitions. The question precisely is whether a classification based on the place of birth of either the candidate or any one of his parents is permissible having regard to the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The petitioners who stand excluded from consideration for admission against a free or payment seat in the Karnataka quota only on account of the fact that none of their parents were born in Karnataka, have assailed the validity of Rule 7(ii) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules 1997 as amended by Notification dated 8th of May 1998. The challenge is mounted against the following backdrop.2. Wing Commander K. Venkatachalam father of Petitioner in W.P.No. 15502/1998 is an Air Force Officer who hails from the adjoining State of Tamilnadu. He has served in Bangalore fo...

Miss Gopalam Mithula Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. An interesting question of considerable importance arises for consideration in these two writ petitions. The question precisely is whether a classification based on the place of birth of either the candidate or any one of his parents is permissible having regard to the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The petitioners who stand excluded from consideration for admission against a free or payment seat in the Karnataka quota only on account of the fact that none of their parents were born in Karnataka, have assailed the validity of Rule 7(ii) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for admission to Engineering, Medical and Dental Courses Rules, 1997 as amended by notification dated 8th of May, 1998. The challenge is mounted against the following backdrop.2. Wing Commander K. Venkatachalam, father of petitioner in W.P. No. 15502 of 1998 is an Air Force Officer who hails from the adjoining State of Tamilnadu. He has served in Bangalore for different pe...

Venkatesh Pillai Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR1999KAR517; 1999(2)KarLJ250

ORDER1. Heard Mr. G.K. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mrs. V. Vidya, learned HCGP for respondent 1, and Mr. N.S. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 8.2. The present writ petition is directed against the notification dated 26/27-7-1996 (Annexure-B) passed by the 2nd respondent-Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board (in short, the 'Board') transferring the petitioner from Bellary and posting him as Executive Engineer (Planning and Designs), Central Office, Bangalore.3. At the first instance, the impugned order was stayed by this Court by the order dated 20-8-1996 for a period of eight weeks and subsequently it was continued for further periods. However, by the order dated 13-1-1998, the stay was vacated. Subsequent thereto, the Managing Director of the respondent-Board passed another order dated 13-2-1998 retransferring the petitioner to the post of Technical Assistant to the Executive Engineer, Bangalore.4. It is not in dispute that despite vacation of ...

State Through Land Acquisition Officer, Bidar Vs. Abdul Raheem Khan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(4)KarLJ372

ORDER1. Heard the learned Government Pleader Sri M.H. Ibrahim on behalf of the State-revision petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent, Sri Lokesh Malavalli.2. This revision application has been made challenging the order dated 24-3-1994 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bidar, inMisc. No. 23 of 1990 on an application under Section 18(3) of the Act directing the Land Acquisition Officer to submit the reference of his redetermined award to the Court forthwith with respect to acquired land Sy. No. 32/1 of Bhairnalli and Sy. Nos. 2, 53/2, 53/3, 53/4 and 56/1 of Village Kanhalli, acquired for construction of a tank in Village Kanhalli Taluk, Bidar. It has been contended by the learned Government Pleader that the petition under Section 18(3) was not within time and therefore reference should not have been made. The authority dealing with the question (1) whether it is a fit case to call for the reference from the Land Acquisition Officer, has opined that though the ...

Sunil Gurunath Hunswadkar Vs. Madhukar Govindarao Hunswadkar and Anoth ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ307

ORDER1. Civil Revision Petition No. 499 of 1995 arises from the judgment and order dated 22-9-1994 passed in M.A. No. 33 of 1993 by Civil Judge, Sirsi, Uttar Kannada, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 16-8-1993 passed by the Munsiff, Haliyal, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 3 of 1989 setting aside the sale held in Execution Case No. 9 of 1975 after having recorded a finding that the sale was vitiated by illegalityand material irregularity in the conduct and publication of sale and that irregularity has been to such an extent that it had tendency to cause substantial injury to the owner of the property. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court examined the sale proclamation Ex. P. 8 and found many irregularities and illegalities in the sale proclamation and the deficiencies which had really affected the conduct of sale. The learned Court below indicated the irregularity and illegalities in the sale proclamation in its observations in paragraphs 12 to 15 and held that...

D.Srinivas Vs. Union of India

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2000ACJ889; ILR1999KAR187

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28-4-1995 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. No. 85 of 1992 dismissing the application filed by him.2. The appellant is the applicant who filed the application for compensation on account of the accident. Once his application was dismissed as not maintainable. Then the applicant approached this Court. He succeeded. Again the Tribunal has held that the application is not maintainable.3. It is the case of the applicant that on 17-2-1992 at about 6.45 p.m. when he was about to board the Bangalore-Hyderabad Express to go to Raichur in Bangalore Cantonment Railway Station, a heavy iron girder which was loosely and carelessly fixed for electrification work of Bangalore Jolarpet Railway line suddenly fell upon the train and in turn fell upon the applicant causing grievous injuries to him and also to the co-passenger Mr. Gajendra. The applicant sustained the fracture of both Tibia and Fibula of the ...

Lotus Roofings (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2001]123STC39(Kar)

Y. Bhaskar Rao, J. 1. The petitioner, a private limited company, is a regular sales tax assessee, under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and is being assessed regularly to sales tax by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessments), Hassan, and is carrying on business as dealers in red mud plastic sheets. These items are obtained by way of stock transfer from the head office of the company situated at Madras. The transactions took place within the State of Karnataka. The assessee was assessed for the assessment year 1992-93 in respect of the above item. The contention of the assessee is that, the item in question was liable to be taxed under entry 7(ii) of Part 'P'. of the Second Schedule to the Act as a plastic item, whereas, the stand of the assessing authority is that the above items were liable to be taxed as roofing materials under entry 9 of Part 'R' of the Second Schedule to the Act. The pre-assessme...

K. Narasappa Vs. the Tahasildar, Honnali Taluk, Honnali and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ96

Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. The appeal is filed assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner-appellant has filed an application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of 1 acre of land which was in his possession. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that petitioner's family was granted land already. Against that, appeal was filed. Appellate Authority affirmed the same. The orders are challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Against that present appeal is filed.2. Learned Counsel for appellant contended that appellant is in possession of 1 acre of land as unauthorised occupant and under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act his application has to be considered. It is contended that the land was granted to his family long back, therefore the same cannot be a bar for granting this land.3. To implement the scheme envis...

Smt. M.P. Vanjakshamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ350

ORDER1. The petitioners claim that they were working as part-time teachers in various State Government Institutions under the control, jurisdiction and supervision of the concerned Zilla Panchayats Zilla Parishads. According to their own case, they had relief from service long back. They have approached this Court for directing the respondents to consider their representation dated 11-2-1997 (Annexure 'M'), dated 1-4-1997 (Annexure 'M1') and dated 15-4-1997 (Annexure 'M2') for reinstatement in terms of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5188 to 5210 of 1992 (Annexure 'L').2. On going through the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 5188 to 5210 of 1992 (DD: 22-1-1992), the judgment of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 1245 of 1988 and connected matters (DD: 21-12-1988) and the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents, I find it necessary to cull out some material facts, which led to passing of the aforesa...

Smt. Sakinabi (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. Smt. Zeenathunnisa (Deceased) by ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ471

ORDER1. This revision application under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the judgment and order dated 24-1-1994 passed in suit No. 1958 of 1989. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration for ex parte decree dated 12-9-1995 passed in HRC. No. 406 of 1996 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, is not binding and executable against thepetitioner in respect of either premises No. 298/3 or 298/1, Albert Victor Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore and for injunction restraining the defendants-respondent and their agents and servants permanently from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs and for restoration of possession and for mandatory injunction against the respondent 2 directing them to restore back the possession of the property which they have unlawfully taken. The plaintiffs had valued the reliefs claimed in the suit under Section 24(d) and 24(c) of the Court Fees Act. The defendants filed objections challenging the valuation g...