Karnataka Court September 1998 Judgments
Ambujakshi B. and Others Vs. the Director, Karnataka Secondary Educati ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ522
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Ko. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.K. Ramesh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.2. The twelve petitioners herein claim that they had been admitted to the TCH course in an unrecognised institution called 'Vijayendra T.T.I. College, Sathenahalli, Hassan, during the academic year 1994-95. They have approached this Court for directing the respondent-Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board (in short the 'Board') to permit them to take up the 1st year TCH examination.3. There is a chequered history of permitting the students of unrecognised institution purporting to train the students in TCH Course in the State of Karnataka at TCH examinations which had led to uncalled for litigations and complications resulting in issuance of ordinances and rendering of several judgments of this Court. These aspects have been considered by this Court in the case Amrith Educational and Cultural Society, Shanthinagar, Bangalore and An...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalaiah Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, State Bank of Mysore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR976]; ILR1998KAR3663; 1998(6)KarLJ359; (1999)ILLJ229Kant
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. The appellant who belongs to a backward community and hails from a poor family got his name registered in the Employment Exchange stating therein that he had studied upto SSLC, but had not completed the same. He was called for interview for the post of a peon and was selected. He was appointed as peon on 22nd of July, 1983 and put under probation for a period of six months. He was issued with a show cause notice on 24th of December, 1983 alleging that as he had secured appointment by suppressing the fact that he had passed SSLC in the year 1979 itself, he thereby committed the fraud incurring a liability of being removed from service. It has to be noticed that the probationary period of the appellant had been extended for a further period of three months. Before the appellant could submit his explanation, the first respondent without holding any enquiry and without affording him any opportunity of showing the cause, passed an order on 28th of March, 1984 terminating ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Elizabeth Mathew Vs. Prof. S.K. Narayana and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Kant291
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Relying upon the Arbitration Clause in the Construction Agreement (Annexure-D), admittedly executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, a prayer has been made for reference of the dispute between the parties to an independent Arbitrator for adjudication in accordance with law.2. No one has appeared for Respondent No. 2, but the claim of the Petitioner has vehemently been resisted by Respondent No. 1, mainly on the ground that as he was not a party to the Construction Agreement-Annexure-D, no reference could be made to the Arbitrator with respect to the disputes allegedly existing between the Petitioner and the aforesaid Respondent. It is contended that in the absence of an Arbitration Clause between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1, the application filed being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.3. Some of the facts necessarily required to be noticed for adjudication of the rival claims of the parties are that:The second Respondent is the Propriet...
Tag this Judgment!Saibabu S. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1306; (1999)IIILLJ993Kant
V. Gopala Gowda, J. 1. The petitioner who was aged about 40 years at the time of passing the peculiar order of termination by the competent authority in exercise of his powers under Paragraph 22 of State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (in short 'the Order) is before this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the same in which termination order it has been illegally declared as he has voluntarily abandoned/voluntarily resigned from service with effect from November 5, 1990 and further sought for a direction declaring that, he has been deemed to be in continuous service as he has never resigned or abandoned the services urging the following legal contentions:The petitioner belongs to ST (Kondakapu). He joined the services of the respondent Bank on December 28, 1974. He has served in the different circles of the respondent-Bank in its different branches. He had rendered 18 years of continuous service and has got ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Shivakumar Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and Other ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ434
ORDER1. The petitioner claims that Site No. 388, situated at 6th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore, was allotted by the first respondent Bangalore Development Authority to him. Petitioner has produced the lease-cum-sale agreement at Annexure-B, dated 16-9-1992, possession certificate at Annexure-C dated 3-10-1992 and katha entered in his name vide Annexure-D, dated nil during October 1992, receipt as per Annexure-E, dated 1-4-1992 for having paid the tax, conditional sale deed as per Annexure-F dated 30-10-1992, certificate as per Annexure-G, dated 11-11-1992 to show that the property in question stands in his name, Annexure-H series for having paid the tax, sanction of plan vide Annexure-J dated 'nil' and the Special Notice issued under Section 147 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act for revision of tax. An-nexure-N, dated 15-10-1997 is produced to show that loan is raised by mortgaging the property in question for constructing the house. The petitioner asserts that he has constru...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramaswamy Vs. Karnataka State Transport Authority, Bangalore and An ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: I(1999)ACC230; 1998(6)KarLJ214
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. The appellant is the holder of a stage carriage permit on the route between Bangalore and Hosur via Agara, Sarjapura and Bagalur, for six single trips. In the present appeal he is aggrieved of the order dated 9-7-1997 passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant that he can operate only on the aforesaid route covered by his permit and not on the deviated route permitted by the State Transport Authority (in short 'the S.T.A.').2. There is no dispute about the foundational facts which lie in a short compass. Admittedly, for travelling from Bangalore to Hosur there are two routes from Madiwala Checkpost, which is located at a distance of 8 kms from Bangalore. One goes via Agara SarjapuraBagalur and the other via Hebbagodi-Chandapura-Attibele (hereinafter referred to as Route Nos.1 and 2 respectively). Admittedly, the said routes are notified routes under the Anekal Pocket Scheme approved on 23-9-1959 and published under Section 66-D(2) of the Motor Vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: [1998]234ITR535(KAR); [1998]234ITR535(Karn)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, on the ground that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to invoke the provision of Section 263 when the Commissioner (Appeals) had already passed an order in an appeal for the assessment year 1983-84 and the order sought to be revised by the Commissioner had already merged in the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) ?'2. The question referred to us stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this court in Addl CIT v. Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service : [1986]157ITR327(KAR) . Therefore, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, Counsel for the Revenue brought to our noti...
Tag this Judgment!Mycon Construction Limited Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: [2002]127STC103(Kar)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The arguments advanced before us are same as were raised before the learned single Judge.2. The learned single Judge after going through the pleadings of the parties and the contentions raised before it crystallised the points into two questions reproduced below :'(i) Whether Sub-section (6) of Section 17 of the Act as amended by means of Act No. 5 of 1996 is unconstitutional and as such, declared to be void ?(ii) Whether Act No. 7 of 1997, which has made Act No. 5 of 1996 retrospective in operation, is unconstitutional and as such, declared to be void ?'The learned single Judge concluded the first point against the appellants relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Builders Association of India : AIR1997SC3640 which is directly on the point and covers the point as in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner unsuccessfully tried before the single Judge that the judgment in State of Kerala v. Builders Association of India : AIR...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaboob Sab and anr. Vs. M.G. Giriraja and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ1142
B.K. Sangalad, J. 1. The appellants filed M.V.C. No. 490 of 1991 for the compensation of Rs. 11,60,000 for the death of their son Rahamathulla who was a carpenter by profession earning Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,500 per month. The Tribunal while dismissing the petition, has awarded a sum of Rs. 32,000 as compensation on the basis of no fault liability. Being aggrieved by this, the present appeal arises.2. Mr. A.K. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no justification for the Tribunal to dismiss MVC petition holding that the petitioners did not prove the negligence. Mr. Shankar, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. In view of this submission, it is to be seen whether the petitioners are able to establish the negligence. The facts in nutshell can be narrated as follows:On 14.6.1991 at about 10.30 p.m., the respondent No. 1 took the bus bearing No. MEK 2072 from a hill top of Donimalai for going towards Sandur. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore Vs. Smt. Puttamma ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)116; 1998(6)KarLJ354; (1999)ILLJ377Kant
ORDER1. This petition is filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for questioning the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 13-6-1991, the operative portion of which reads as follows:'The provident fund amount of the respondent to the extent of the arrears of maintenance due in this proceedings in hereby attached. Issue attachment warrant to the Provident Fund Disbursing Officer as shown in the Process Fee memo returnable by 31-7-1992'.2. The brief facts of the case are the respondents made an application before the Court below to attach the provident fund amount due and payable to respondents 1, 1(a) to (f) against the provident fund amount contributed by the 2nd respondent by attaching the same to recover the arrears of maintenance awarded under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate has passed a considered order holding that there is no prohibition to attach the provident fund amount payable to the resp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »