Karnataka Court September 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.
Akhila Bharatha Kuruhinashetty Sangha (R), Bangalore and Another Vs. t ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ461
ORDER1. Heard Mr. V.T. Rayaraddi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. V. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents-1 and 3 and Mr. N.R. Naik, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 29-5-1998 (Annexure-D) passed by the 1st respondent setting aside the order of dismissal dated 21-4-1992 (Annexure-B) passed by the President of the petitioner-Society dismissing the services of the 2nd respondent.3. The petitioner-Akhila Bharatha Kuruhinashetty Sangha (R) is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. According to the petitioner, it is running some educational institutions including J.N. School of Arts and J.N. Pre-Primary Teachers Training Institute. There appears to be some dispute among the office bearers of the society but I do not intend to enter into the same in the present case since in my opinion that aspect is not very material for the present.4...
Indian Plywoodmanufacturing Company Limited, Dharwad Vs. the Commissio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR186]; 1998(6)KarLJ280; (1999)ILLJ411Kant
R.P. Sethi, C.J1. Aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 8-3-1996 (Annexure-F) directing the appellant to pay the closure compensation totally amounting to Rs. 4,08,43,845/- within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the aforesaid notice and the Certificate (Annexure-H) issued under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') dated 27th of July, 1996, authorising the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, to recover the aforesaid amount, the appellant herein filed a writ petition praying for quashing of the aforesaid notice and certificate with a further prayer restraining the respondents to initiate any proceedings for attachment and sale of the assets and properties belonging to the appellant till the reference stated to be pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction was disposed of.2. The main ground urged was that in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985...
Obalegappa Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR372; 1999(5)KarLJ287
ORDER1. Heard.2. On 30-9-1948 the petitioner was granted 2 acres 10 guntas of land in Sy. No. 96/3 of Kanur Village in Shikaripur Taluk of Shimoga District initially on temporary lease then followed by permanent grant made on 14-3-1956. He is a member of the Valmiki Community. He sold the said land on 24-5-1966 under a registered sale deed to one Gangri Ranganna, who in turn, sold the same to respondent 3 on 26-2-1973.3. On an application made by the petitioner, the order dated 5-1-1993 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the said alienation dated 25-4-1966 made by the grantee in favour of Gangri Ranganna as also its subsequent alienation by the latter to respondent 3 made on 26-2-1973 was null and void on the ground that the land was alienated by the grantee in- violation of the non-alienation condition. The said order of Assistant Commissioner was challenged in appeal by respondent 3 before the Deputy Commissioner who passed his impugned order dated 8-9-1997, produc...
Hombalamma and Others Vs. Smt. Ningamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1411; 1998(6)KarLJ25
ORDERS.R. Venkatesha Murthy, J. 1. The revision petitioners-plaintiffs challenge in this revision, the order of the Civil Judge, Srirangapatna dated 22nd of April, 1995 in O.S. No. 29 of 1991, making a reference to the Land Tribunal the additional Issue No. 1(A) for its adjudication on the claim of tenancy by the respondent-defendant in the suit. 2. The parties are referred to according to their array in the TrialCourt.3. The plaintiffs sought declaration of title to the plaint schedule property and possession of the same from the defendant. 4. The defendant set up a plea that her husband Hongaiah was tenant of the land from a time prior to 1-3-1974 and on his demise, the tenancy rights have devolved on her. 5. On such a plea being raised, the learned Civil Judge raised Issue No. 1(A) casting the burden of proof that Hongaiah, the husband of the defendant was a tenant of the property and thereafter the defendant became a tenant. By virtue of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Ac...
S. Takenaka Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR4139; [1999]237ITR112(KAR); [1999]237ITR112(Karn)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), has referred the following question of law along with the statement of the case to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income-tax paid by the employer on salary of the applicant has to be grossed up on 'tax on tax basis' and not on simple tax basis as envisaged under Section 17(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The reference has been made at the instance of the assessee relating to the assessment year 1984-85. Shortly stated the facts are :The assessee in this case is a foreigner who worked as a technical advisor to Yuken India Ltd., Bangalore. As per the terms of his employment, he was to be paid a fixed amount of net salary and the tax component was to be borne by his employer. The employer paid income-tax of Rs. 34,306 on behalf of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer framed the asse...
Smt. Annapoorna Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ535
ORDER1. Heard Sri R.H. Chandangoudar for the petitioner and Mrs. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader, for respondent 1 and respondent 2 and third respondent-Institution has remained absent despite issue of notice through registered post.2. According to the petitioner she had been appointed as a lecturer in Geography in the third respondent-Institution through an appointment letter dated 6-11-1992 (Annexure-B) issued by the General Secretary of the Institution. It appears that subsequent to the said appointment of the petitioner, the management of the Institution had requested the respondents 1 and 2 for approval of the petitioner's appointment for the purpose of salary grant under the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code. But the same has been rejected by the Government under its letter dated 24-4-1997 (Annexure-K) and dated 7-1-1998 (Annexure-M) on the ground that the post on which the petitioner had been appointed was reserved for SC/ST candidate. Under the above circumstance...
Sumithra Devi Vs. G. Venkateshan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Kar)40; II(1999)DMC655
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.1. Heard Smt. Geetha Menon for Smt. M.N. Pramila Nesargi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S. Raju for Mr. K.L. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. This civil revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. has been preferred by the respondent before the Appellate Court from the order of the Family Court dated 18.4.1994 allowing the amendment of the petition for divorce in which in alternative the petitioner has sought a decree for judicial separation on the basis of same facts and allegations that have been contained in the petition for divorce. The amendment sought has been quoted in paragraph 1 of the order of the Court below. If the relief for judicial separation has also been claimed in alternative to the decree for divorce on the basis of same facts and allegations, it may at the most amount to an additional approach to the same facts and additional relief on same facts and so it could not be said to be amounting to a new case and the Court below...
K. Abdul Hameed and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)KarLJ502
ORDER1. I have heard the learned Counsels who represent the petitioners in all these four writ petitions, as also the learned Government Advocate who represents the respondents. All the learned Advocates have been heard on merits.2. The earlier orders passed by this Court indicate that there are almost one hundred persons who are similarly situated to the petitioners and I had afforded the petitioners' learned Advocate the facility of presenting a single petition on their behalf, if they so desire, for two reasons. First, because these are very poor persons. Secondly, because the cause of action is identical, but more importantly because the Government Authorities have passed orders against all these persons and only those who have obtained reliefs from the Court would get the benefit of the Court orders. The learned Counsel conveyed the position to some of the remaining persons but for a variety of reasons, none of them are before this Court. This order is therefore confined to the pe...
H.B. Kotresh Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(6)KarLJ306
ORDER1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Hindi Teacher in Sri Bommalingeshwara High School, Basavanakote, Chitradurga District and to direct the respondent 4-Soci-ety, which is running and managing the said School to pay his salaries which is due from 15-6-1993 till date with costs and interest.2. Statement of objection has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State and its Officers-respondents 1 to 3. But despite service of notice to respondent 4-Education Society, no one has entered appearance and contested the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition.3. The respondent 4-Education Society is running two High Schools, namely, Sri Bommalingeshwara High School at Basavanakote, Chitradurga District and Sri Anjaneyaswamy High School at Alur. Both the schools have been recognised by the State Government and has been admitted to grant-in-aid from 25-8-1988 and...
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs. C.G. Meh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: ILR1998KAR3868; 1998(6)KarLJ458
ORDERY. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (in short, 'KSRTC') assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition.2. The facts of the case are, that respondent 1 applied for the grant of stage permit on the route Kundur to Shimoga, Shimoga to Basavapatna, Basavapatna to Shimoga and Shimoga to Kundur. Permit was granted on 29-7-1993. That is challenged before the Appellate Tribunal by respondents 4 to 6. The grant of permit was set aside stating that overlapping is there to the extent of 3.6 kms. and the scheme is exclusively reserved in favour of KSRTC. Assailing that order, the first respondent filed a writ petition.3. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that, some other operators are also operating on the same overlapping route. Therefore non-permitting respondent 1 will be discriminatory. Against that, KSRTC filed this appeal.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »