Karnataka Court January 1999 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.
C. Jayaram Vs. Regional Transport Officer and the Registering Authorit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR2586; 1999(2)KarLJ672
ORDER1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement directing to enhance the seating capacity of the vehicle from 41+2 to 48+2. The vehicle is operated on stage carriage permit. At the time when the vehicle was purchased it was registered as Omni Passenger Motor Vehicle with a seating capacity of 41+2 in the State of Tamil Nadu. The vehicle was converted into omnibus from a stage carriage. Application under Form 29 was submitted. The petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 5,470/- and Rs. 935/- which were deposited on 1-3-1993. It is submitted that in view of the judgment given by this Court in Sanjeevaiah v Regional Transport Officer , the Regional Transport Officer has no power to give direction to alter the vehicle to provide larger seating capacity.2. Reliance is placed on the judgment given in the case of Zia-ur-Rahaman v Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore West . This decision is on the basis of the judgment given in the case of Sanjeevaiah, supra.Reliance is also placed on the d...
M/S. Kenchamba Service Station, B.M. Road, Hassan Vs. Union of India a ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-06-1999
Reported in: [2000(84)FLR52]; ILR1999KAR1297; 1999(3)KarLJ260; (1999)IILLJ374Kant
ORDER1. Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing Item No. 1 of notification produced by him as Annexure-C and also the demand made by the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) Corporation demanding him to contribute a sum of Rs. 32,109.80 vide Annexure-D in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the petitioner has also sought for quashing Section 1(5) of the ESI Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity), 1948 as unconstitutional, in the writ petition since the same was not argued during hearing of the petition, the same is not dealt in this order.2. The case of the petitioner is that as a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation has established a petrol bunk along with it is running a Service Station in his own individual right employing about 7 to 8 persons in the latter businesses at Hassan. The Regional Director, ESI Corporation, on the basis that the petitioner had employed 11 persons during December 1982 and since the peti...
Smt. S. Girija Vs. Kanara Transport Company, Mangalore and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-05-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC203; 2000ACJ113; [1999(82)FLR756]; 1999(3)KarLJ151
ORDER1. The present revision petition arises from the order dated 31-10-1998 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, D.K., Sub-Division, Mangalore on I.A. No. Miscellaneous/CR-1/98 in No. WCA/CR-2/92-F. As per office report this CRP is misconceived as under Section 115 of the CPC, the revision lies from the order of the subordinate Civil Court. Section 3 of the CPC defines and provides what are the Courts subordinate for the purpose of the CPC and under the Code to High Court or District Court. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation does not come within the purview of the Court for the purpose of Code of Civil Procedure as it is not mentioned therein. Secondly, Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is not a Court i.e., Civil Court, it is only a Tribunal under the Act. My this view finds support from Section 23 of the Act itself. Section 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act reads as under:'23. Power and procedure of Commissioners.--The Commissioner shall have all the p...
Noor Mohamed Vs. Mohamed Karmulla and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)KarLJ654
ORDER1. The defendant challenges in this first appeal the decree for payment of damages of Rs. 15,000/- to him the plaintiff for construction of the suit shop, though the suit for possession was dismissed. The plaintiff having not filed cross-objections, the decree has become final and this appeal itself is confined only to awarding of interest at 18% per annum. It is made clear by the order of this Court dated 27-9-1989. Therefore, the question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at 18% per annum for the amount given by him for the construction of the shop.2. Plaintiff 1 is the son of plaintiff 2 and they wanted to do some business, and hence they were in need of a shop. Defendant was about to purchase a premises at Kalasipalyam and he wanted to construct shop therein. So on 28-3-1980, plaintiff 1 and defendant entered into an agreement of lease. In that agreement, the defendant agreed to lease the suit shop to be constructed to the plaintiff within two months and for tha...
Sangeetha H.D. and Others Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Scienc ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ90
ORDERMohamed Anwar, J. 1. Aggrieved by the refusal of respondent 1-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka ('respondent-University', in short) to permit them to appear for II BDS Course Examination held at the end of second academic year of the course, the petitioners have filed these petitions praying grant of the following reliefs:'(A) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the II year BDS Examinations scheduled from 29-10-1998 onwards, further directing them not to treat the petitioners as ineligible on account of any shortage of attendance; (B) issue a writ of direction or other suitable writ directing the II respondent to exercise the power under the ordinance to condone the shortage of attendance, if any, if called for, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances leading to belated admissions; (C) issue suitable writ or direction to the respondents to take into ac...
Smt. S.K. Chandrika Vs. Smt. Byamma and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)488; I(2000)DMC185; 1999(5)KarLJ183
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act (as amended by Act No. 59 of 1991) arises from the judgment and order dated 15-4-1998 passed by Smt. Rathnakala, II Additional Principal Judge, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous Case No. 480 of 1996 whereby the learned subordinate Court has overruled the objections raised by the present revision petitioner to the maintainability of the application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has held that the petition under Section 125 was maintainable.2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that the minor children of the revision petitioner filed the claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against their mother who has been working as a woman Police Constable in Ulsoor Gate Mahila Police Station, Bangalore. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of thepresent revision petitioner who was respondent before the Court below to the effect that the app...
Ravindra Shetty Vs. the Management of Mysore Petro Chemicals Limited, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: [1999(82)FLR806]; 1999(6)KarLJ367
ORDER1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23719 of 1998 was working as Senior Health Inspector (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') in M/s. Mysore Petro Chemicals Limited in Raichur (hereinafter referred to as 'the management') which the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15503 of 1998. The workman was removed from service. He raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Gulbarga. The validity of domestic enquiry conducted was tried as preliminary issue and it was held in favour of the management holding that the enquiry conducted was fair and legal. Thereafter, upon adjudication of the dispute, the Labour Court passed the impugned award on 7-2-1998 directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages. While the workman has filed W.P. No. 23719 of 1998 challenging that portion of the award denying 50% back wages, the management has filed W.P. No. 15503 of 1998 seeking to quash the entire award. Since both the writ petitions pertain to the same award, t...
Kanpha Labs Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jan-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(66)ECC543; 1999LC471(Karnataka); 1999(113)ELT32(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. The order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise dated 22-10-1992 have been assailed in this petition. Petitioner is a manufacturer of ITEOL-3. The dispute is with regard to the classification as to whether it falls under sub-heading 3301.00 or 3003.10. Show cause notice was issued to classify the item under sub-heading 3301.00 and the petitioner was asked to explain why the duty of 20% ad valorem be not levied.The item manufactured is an antiseptic and disinfectant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued before me on two points.1. that the show cause notice was issued to treat the product as falling under Chapter 33 while the duty has been levied under Chapter 30 which is against the principles of natural justice;2. that the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, dated 29-7-1992 is contrary to the provisions of Section 37B of the Central Excise Act.2. Arguments of both the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›