Karnataka Court November 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.
Under Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant150; ILR2000KAR1601; 2000(2)KarLJ334
ORDER1. This writ appeal is filed by respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 11-8-1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 28272 of 1995 in the case of A. Rajendra Naidu v Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore allowing the writ petition. Along with the appeal LA. No. 2 was filed for condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the appeal. No objection is filed to the same by the contesting respondents. For the reasons stated in the I.A. delay is condoned.2. The brief facts of the case are:The first respondent claiming himself to be a businessman residing in Bangalore for the last 20 years registered himself for allotment of a site. He made an application on 28-10-1992 to the Chairman of the B.D.A. (II respondent) for allotment of a site. The Chairman allotted a site measuring 60 x 90 on 10-11-1992. The appellants on coming to know of the said allotment cancelled the same and informed the first respondent accordingly by endorsement dated 29th ...
Gemini Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-15-1999
Reported in: [2000]119STC30(Kar)
ORDERV.K. SINGHAL, J. 1. In these revision petitions the following questions have been raised by the Trial Court :'(a) Whether, under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the defective coils and defective steel pipes which was not subjected to any manufacturing process, which were purchased locally and sold as such is liable to tax under Section 5 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ?(b) Whether the Tribunal is justified in ignoring the contentions with regard to non-application of the mind by the revisional authority on the question of taxing defective pipes when it was specifically brought that there was no mention in the notice ?(c) Whether there is any material to the Tribunal to hold that the petitioner is liable to tax on the sales of defective pipes and coils purchased locally when the assessing authority has held that these goods were not subjected to any process of manufacturing ?(d) Whether the Tribunal is justified in hol...
Basana Gowda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-13-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR335; 2001(2)KarLJ527
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. The petitioners-landowners herein had filed a Civil Petition in No. 1133 of 1991 with a prayer to call for the records in Appeal No. LRA 270 of 1988 on the file of the District Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Dharwar and further to register the same as a writ petition. That is how the instant writ petition came to be registered by this Court. In the above said appeal, the petitioners herein had challenged the order dated 23-4-1988 in case No. KLR:SR:ADG:24 passed by the respondent 2-LandTribunal, Hubli. In passing the same, the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy right in respect of 6 acres 75 cents in Block No. 675 of Adaragunchi Village, Hubli Taluk.2. The facts are quite interesting and the same are as hereunder:3. That, the respondent 3 had filed Form No. 7 on 13-8-1974 claiming occupancy right in respect of 6 acres 75 cents of land in Block No. 675 described himself as Mohammadsab Hussainsab Mundinamani alias Sheth Sanadi as against the original owner...
Paramashivaiah and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ645
ORDER1. The petitioners, in these petitions, have called in question the correctness of the order dated 30th of March, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-L, passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, rejecting their claim for conferment of occupancy right in respect of the land measuring 26 acres 29 guntas in Survey Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75, 82 and 83 of Chikkayellur Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.2. A few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of these petitions, may be stated as hereunder:(a) Lands bearing Survey Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75, 82 and 83 in all measuring 26 acres 29 guntas were agreed to be sold by one Basavayya @ Basavegouda in favour of one Hanumayya by means of an agreement to sell dated 10th of February, 1966. Since the said Basavayya did not perform his part of the obligation by executing the necessary sale deed, the said Hanumayya filed suit O.S. No. 39 of 1969, on the file of the Court of Principal C...
Dr. K.S. Ravindranath Vs. Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ72
ORDER1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner has called in question the validity of an appointment made by the respondent-Institute to the post of Assistant Professor in Paediatric Cardiology. The challenge is primarily based on the ineligibility of the appointee to seek appointment and to hold the post to which he has been appointed. The ineligibility in turn arises out of and is related entirely to the age of the incumbent as on the date of her appointment. According to the petitioner, the second respondent who was selected for appointment and is presently holding the post was not eligible having gone past the maximum age limit prescribed by the Pay and Recruitment Rules of the Institute. The only question that falls for serious consideration, apart from an objection relating to the maintainability of this petition therefore is, whether the Institute could make the appointment in question relying upon the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitmen...
B. Ganesh Vs. Chancellor of Universities and Governor of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR150; 2000(1)KarLJ152
ORDER1. The Assistant Registrar of a prestigious University is questioning the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Syndicate of the University dated 19-9-1992, consequential communication of the order of penalty dated 20/25-11-1992 and the order made by the Appellate Authority dated 5-1-1994.2. Brief facts are:Respondent-Kuvempu University by a notification dated 22-7-1989 has appointed petitioner as Assistant Registrar of the University. Pursuant to the said notification, petitioner has reported for duty as Assistant Registrar. By an official memorandum dated 2-8-1989, the University has entrusted to the petitioner apart from other functions, the purchase of furniture and stationery articles and maintenance of stock registers, etc. In that, it was made known that he will submit the files to the Registrar of the University for approval. The respondent-University issued a show-cause notice dated 10-10-1990 containing charges of misconduct said to have been committed by the p...
Sunil Kumar D.S. and Others Vs. Mysore University and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ307
ORDER1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are MBBS students studying in Institutions affiliated to the respondent-Mysore University. Admitted prior to the year 1996-97, the respondent continues to offer the examinations for the earlier batch of students. Results of the examinations conducted during July 1999 showed that the petitioners had failed in one or more subjects. Most of them appear to have applied for revaluation of their answer scripts' and re-totaling of their marks, which respondent is examining. The grievance of the petitioners in these petitions relates primarily to the validity of a notification dated 15th of July, 1999 issued by the University declaring that its regulations providing for award of grace marks shall have no application to Graduate/Postgraduate Medical Courses and such other Courses as are governed by any Central Legislation. Having said so the respondent appears to have declined the request for award of grace marks to the petitioners no matter s...
Smitha R. and Others Vs. the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bang ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ635
ORDER1. Admissions to postgraduate courses offered by the respondent-University are governed by the regulations framed by it. Regulations 4.1.0 to 4.1.5 of the said Regulations prescribe the conditions of eligibility for admission to doctoral programmes, whereas Regulations 4.2.0 to 4.2.14 deal with Masters Course in different subjects. A reading of these regulations would show that all such candidates as possess the prescribed academic qualifications from a recognised University are eligible for admission. Neither the regulations nor any other provision contained elsewhere make a reservation in favour of candidates from the State of Karnataka either on the basis of their domicile in the State or on the ground of institutional preference. The prospectus issued by the University for admission to the Postgraduate Courses during the academic session 1999-2000 also does not make any provision for reservation of seats in favour of candidates from the State of Karnataka. It reiterates the pr...
S.V. Krishnamachari Alias Krishnamachari Vs. Bhatia
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR965; 2000(2)KarLJ401
ORDER1. These two revisions arise out of an eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord under the provisions of Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('the Act' for short). The impugned order is questioned by the landlord and tenant aggrieved by the adverse order passed by the Trial Court against them by allowing the eviction petition filed under Section 21(1)(h) of the Act and dismissing the petition under Section 21(1)(p) of the Act. The landlord who initiated eviction petition under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act has given up the same at the trial. The jural relationship of the parties is not in dispute. The eviction petition is taken under Section 21(1)(h) and (p) of the Act. The requirement is pleaded by the landlord at para 2 of his petition. It is his case that he is a goldsmith carrying on business in his premises at Yelahanka Town and he requires the petition premises to carry on his business as his landlord has been demanding him to vaca...
MirajuddIn Patel Vs. Commissioner for Cane Development-cum-director of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR1351; 2001(3)KarLJ187
ORDER1. The petitioner presently functioning as the President of the Bidar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Hallikhed, Bidar, henceforth referred to as 'the Sugar Factory' in brief, filed the instant writ petition with a main prayer that he be declared as the duly elected President of the Sugar Factory and that he is entitled to hold the said post for a statutory period of 2 1/2 years from 11-6-1999 and further for quashing of notification dated 21-8-1999 passed by the Government cancelling his nomination to the Sugar Factory as its Committee member, copy at Annexure-D to writ petition and further for quashing of communication dated 10-9-1999 by the respondent 1 the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Commissioner for Cane Development, addressed to the respondent 3, copy as at Annexure-F to writ petition, clarifying that the election be held for the Office of the President of the Sugar Factory as a vacancy had arisen in the said Office and also the meeting notice d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »