Karnataka Court August 1998 Judgments
Umesh Hiremath Vs. the Government of Karnataka, Education Department, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR589; 2000(2)KarLJ259
ORDER1. The petitioner appeared in the common entrance test conducted by the CET Cell for admissions to Medical and Engineering Colleges in the State. He was allotted a Medical seat in Al Ameen College at Bijapur in the payment category, which allotment was subsequently cancelled pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court, and on the ground that seat allotted to the petitioner was in excess of the intake capacity of the College. He was thereafter granted admission against an Engineering seat in what is known as BOT College, Davanagere, where he is presently undergoing the Course. In the meantime certain casual vacancies appear to have occurred in the Medical Colleges which were notified by the CET Cell inviting only such candidates for counselling as had not already secured admission in any Course. Although the petitioner had been allotted an Engineering seat, he appears to have approached the CET Cell for consideration against one of such vacancies. The Cell declined that ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Shivananna and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ219
ORDER1. Appointment of Notaries is regulated by the Notaries Act, 1952 and the rules framed thereunder. Rule 3 of the said rules prescribes the qualifications for appointment, whereas Rules 4 and 5 prescribe the procedure to be followed in the matter of making such appointments. Rule 7 of the rules provides that the competent authority shall after holding such enquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of making his representation against the objections, if any revised under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, make a report to the appropriate Government recommending either that the application may be allowed for the whole or any part of the area for which the same is made or that it may be rejected. Rule 7(3) is for the purpose of this writ petition relevant and may therefore be extracted in extenso.7(1) xxx xxx xxx.(2) xxx xxx xxx.'(3) In making his recommendation under sub-rule (1), the competent authority shall have due regard to the following matters, namely.-(a) wh...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and Others Vs. M/S. Village-de-nandi (Private) Limi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR49; 2000(3)KarLJ8
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the order dated 11-12-1996 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition Nos. 29597 to 29608 of 1996. The writ petitions had been filed by three private limited companies namely; (i) Mis. Village-De-Nandi (Private) Limited, (ii) M/s. Foot Hills Resorts (Private) Limited and (iii) Mis. Pennar Hotel and Resorts (Private) Limited (in short, the 'Companies' hereinafter). For the sake of convenience, we will be referring to the documents as marked and the parties as arrayed in the writ petitions.2. The companies had filed the above writ petitions questioning the validity of the orders dated 2-2-1996/12-2-1996/13-2-1996 (Annexure-L1 to L12) passed by the respondent Tahsildar and the order dated 4-10-1996 (Annexure-P) passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner, being the Appellate Authority. The Tahsildar, by his impugned orders had held that the earlier orders passed under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Kotrappa Chalageri (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. State of Karnataka a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ576
ORDER1. The orders dated October 10, 1995 and August 9, 1996 passed by respondent 2 as per Annexure-B and A respectively are sought to be quashed by the petitioner in this petition.2. The petitioner was the owner of Sy. No. 64/1 measuring 15 acres 16 guntas situated in Kodihalli village, Hirekerur Tq., Dharwad District. The said land was acquired vide the declaration dated February 16, 1978 and the award was also made on April 7, 1979.3. The petitioner appears to have been satisfied with the award and, therefore, did not seek reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). However, the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 71/1 sought reference and the reference Court by its award dated November 9, 1983 enhanced the compensation. The owner again approached this Court in MFA No. 1061 of 1984 and it was disposed of on August 14, 1986. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act to redetermine the compensation in accor...
Tag this Judgment!C. Byraiah Vs. B. Ansuya and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)678; 1999CriLJ368; 1999(5)KarLJ181
ORDER1. Though notices were served on the respondents, they remained absent. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The short but important question involved in this petition is as to whether the major unmarried daughters are entitled for maintenance from the father under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are daughters of the petitioner and they have attained majority even before filing of the petition. Further, they are gainfully employed. Hence, they are not entitled for maintenance. He also submitted that these respondents are not physically or mentally handicapped to claim maintenance under Section 125(2) of the Cr. P.C. and in support of his argument, he placed reliance on a decision in K. Sivaram v K. Mangalamba and Others, wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the maintenance to children cannot be granted beyond the age of their attaining majority in the absence of any physical or mental abn...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar Velji Vs. Punjab National Bank and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas329(Kar)
Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This revision petition arises from the order dated April 6, 1991, by the Civil Judge, Gadag, in Ex. Case No. 238 of 1988. The application was made by the decree-holder for fixation of the reserve price at Rs. 2,50,000. The judgment-debtors have filed their objections that the price or value of the textile mill along with the residential (garters and other office buildings and the land would not be less than Rs. 6,00,000. They stated that it may be even higher than Rs. 6,00,000. They submitted that they had incurred expenditure of not less than Rs. 2,00,000 while constructing the buildings. The judgment-debtors further contended that the reserve price could not be fixed at less than the dipteral amount. They submitted that it should not be lower than the amount to be realised. The court below fixed the price at Rs. 5,00,000 taking the view that the judgment-debtor himself says that it shall not be more than Rs. 6,00,000. The court observes, admittedly, even acco...
Tag this Judgment!C.G. Krishna Prasad (Major) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: [1999]237ITR422(KAR); [1999]237ITR422(Karn)
Tirath S. Thakur, J.1. This writ petition calls in question the validity of an order passed by the respondent--Commissioner of Income-tax declining the petitioner's prayer for waiver of interest levied under Sections 159(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner was of the view that since the petitioner had failed to deposit the admitted tax payable on the income disclosed, he could not claim waiver or reduction in the amount of interest levied, the deposit being a condition precedent for any such waiver to be permissible.2. For the assessment year 1987-88, the petitioner filed a return on November 10, 1989, declaring a total income of Rs. 13,220. This was followed by a revised return filed on March 16, 1990, disclosing an income of Rs. 1,26,220. The return was further revised by the petitioner on April 22, 1990, disclosing an income of Rs. 2,69,880. An amount of Rs. 1,09,190 was payable as tax on the income disclosed in the second revised return, as against which the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Madhava Raja Rao Vs. General Manager (Personnel Wing), Head Office, Ca ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1340Kant
1. While appellant was working as Manager, Canara Bank, Sindhagatta Village in Mandya District during the year 1981-82, a departmental inquiry was instituted against him under Regulation 6 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter called as Regulations) on three charges. Sri U.P.A. Naik, Divisional Manager, Kolar Division of the Bank was appointed as Inquiry Authority with regard to the alleged charges levelled against the appellant. The Inquiry Authority submitted report to me Disciplinary Authority holding the appellant guilty of all the charges framed against him. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated September 2, 1984 accepted the findings recorded by me Inquiry Authority and imposed the penalty of removal from service without disqualification for future employment. Copy of the Inquiry Report was furnished to the appellant along with the final order of the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the Order of the Disciplinary Aut...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Kotrappa Chalageri Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3743
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J. 1. The orders dated October 10, 1995 and August 9, 1996 passed by respondent No. 2 as per Annexures B and A respectively are sought to be quashed by the petitioner in this petition.2. The petitioner was the owner of Sy. No. 64/1 measuring 15 acres 16 guntas situated in Kodihalli village, Hirekerur Taluk, Dharwad District. The said land was acquired vide the declaration dated February 16, 1978 and the award was also made on April 7, 1979.3. The petitioner appear to have been satisfied with the award and, therefore, did not seek reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). However, the owner of the land bearing Sy.No. 71/1 sought reference and the reference Court by its award dated November 9, 1983 enhanced the compensation. The owner again approached this Court in MFA No. 1061/1984 and it was disposed of on August 14, 1986. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under Section 28A of the Act to redetermine the co...
Tag this Judgment!C.G. Krishna Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-26-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Kar)596
ORDERTIRATH S. THAKUR, J.This writ petition calls in question the validity of an order passed by the Respondent CIT declining the petitioner's prayer for waiver of interest levied under ss. 139(8) and 217 of the IT Act, 1961. The CIT was of the view that since the petitioner had failed to deposit the admitted tax payable on the income disclosed, he could not claim waiver or reduction in the amount of interest levied, the deposit being a condition precedent for any such waiver to be permissible.2. For the asst. yr. 1987-88, the petitioner filed a return on 10th Nov., 1989 declaring a total income of Rs. 13,220. This was followed by a revised return filed on 16th March, 1990, disclosing an income of Rs. 1,26,220. The return was further revised by the petitioner on 22nd April, 1990, disclosing an income of Rs. 2,69,880. An amount of Rs. 1,09,190 was payable as tax on the income disclosed in the second revised return, as against which the petitioner paid along with the second revised retur...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »