Karnataka Court February 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.
Janab Nizar Ahmed Sheriff Vs. A. Kannan
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ359
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit for declaration of ownership and for possession apart from the mandatory injunction for demolition and removal of unauthorised construction and also for mesne profits have been decreed by the Trial Court. Challenging such decree the defendant has preferred the present regular first appeal.2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that the plaintiff claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit site bearing No. 4 in Sy. No. 132 at Kacharakanahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, having purchased the same on 21-11-1980 from one Smt. Muniyamma, W/o. T.M. Reddy. The re-cords of the panchayat like R of R and ILR has been changed in thename of the plaintiff; but however as the panchayat was not collecting taxes, the plaintiff has not paid the taxes. On 1-6-1986 the plaintiff was surprised to find that the defendant had trespassed upon the suit property and constructed a residential house with asbestos sheet roof in a portion of the suit site; the issue...
Smt. Pati Devi Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Kar)28; [1999]240ITR727(KAR); [1999]240ITR727(Karn)
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner dated July 2, 1993 (annexure-D), by which the explanationwith regard to 25 tolas of gold and 250 tolas of silver has been accepted and remaining 10 tolas of gold was treated as having not been satisfactorily explained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice instruction dated May 11, 1994, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by which 500 grams of gold jewellery and ornaments per married lady, 250 gms per unmarried lady, 100 gms per male member of the family were directed not to be seized. The instructions issued could only be retrospective in the sense that even if a seizure is made today irrespective of the date of acquisition of gold jewellery, the benefit has to be given to that extent. It is not the value which is increased but it is the weight which is considered reasonable looking to the social circumstances prevailing in the country. Simply because in a particular case the...
Allasab Balaji Multhani (Deceased) by L.Rs. Vs. State of Karnataka and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-12-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1159; 1999(3)KarLJ383
ORDER1. I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate, the learned Advocate who represents the contesting parties and the learned Government Advocate on merits. Before dealing with the case on merits, it is very necessary for me to point out that the Land Reforms Act was promulgated as a social welfare measure with a particular objective in mind. Between 1974 and the present point of time in the course of the last twenty-five years, the only purpose which this legislation has served is that it has kept the Courts extremely busy and from the type of persons who are appointed to preside over the Tribunals, I am quite confident that they will see to it that the High Court is kept well occupied for the next century. The statistics so far indicate that 1,32,900 cases relating to land reforms alone have come up to this High Court and gone back to the Tribunal, many of them several times, a few of them as many as six times. The process is endless because the Tribunal is a special forum inves...
M. Vittal Rao and Another Vs. M.H. Ranganath and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)KarLJ169
ORDER1. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel on both sides.2. This is plaintiffs' revision against the order dated 7-4-1998 of the Trial Court in S.C. No. 4813 of 1993 directing return of the plaint to them for its presentation before the competent jurisdictional Court.3. The said S.C. No. 4813 of 1993 was filed by the plaintiffs against respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') in the Court below at Bangalore for recovery of the sum of Rs. 19,467/- with interest at 12% per annum from them on the basis of Ex. P. 1 pro-note dated 25-4-1984 alleging that it was executed by them at Davangere City in favour of plaintiff 2 for the debt of Rs. 14,100/- agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 12% per annum and that they have failed to repay the said debt despite demand notice Ex. P. 3, dated 1-3-1996 which was got issued from Bangalore through plaintiffs' Advocate, Defendants filed their written statement contesting the plaintiffs' suit on the ground, inter alia, t...
R. Prasanna Kumar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR1378; 1999(3)KarLJ295
Y. Bhaskar Rao, Actg. C.J.1. A batch of writ appeals are filed assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed seeking a writ or direction to prohibit the respondents 2 and 3 from holding the election to the office of the President and Vice-President of the Municipalities before the completion of the term of 30 months by the appellants with effect from the date of their election and for the declaration that the term of office of the appellants as President and Vice-President of the Municipalities is for a period of 30 months from the date of their election.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants in these appeals were elected either as President or Vice-President of the respective Municipalities in the vacancies caused during the currency of the term of the President or Vice-President of the Municipalities. It is their case that though they were elected in the vacancies caused during the currency of the offic...
Air Marshal Amarjeet Singh Sethi Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)KarLJ336
ORDER1. A retired Air Force Officer after a distinguished service in the Indian Air Force is before this Court with his second writ petition inter alia seeking a declaration, to declare that the policy letter No. 7(1) 79(D) AIR III Volume II, dated 30-8-1986 has no statutory force and the same is arbitrary and unreasonable or in the alternative to hold that the said policy is not applicable to the training and maintenance command. Secondly, for a writ to quash the impugned communication dated 29-12-1995 issued by respondent. Consequently, to direct the respondents to grant notional status of AIR Officer Commanding in Chief (AOC-in-C) w.e.f. 31-5-1995.2. On an earlier occasion, petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 24396 of 1995 inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of AOC-in-C in Bangalore or in the alternative to accord him the status of AOC-in-C from 31-5-1995 notionally. The claim of the petitioner had been resisted by respondents solely...
The Medical Relief Society of South Kanara, Manipal, Dakshina Kannada ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC42; 1999(111)ELT327(Kar); ILR1999KAR1877; 1999(3)KarLJ439
ORDER1. Common questions of law arise for consideration in these petitions, which were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this order. The questions primarily relate to a true and correct interpretation of Notification No. 64 of 1988, dated 1st of March, 1998 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the eligibility of the petitioners for the grant of exemption from payment of customs duty on the import of medical equipments from outside the country. The correctness of the orders passed by the respondents on the applications made by the petitioners for the grant of exemption certificates and the withdrawal of certificates alreadygranted has been assailed on a variety of grounds. The challenge arises against the following backdrop.-2. People's Union of Civil Liberties in a writ petition filed in public interest before the High Court of Delhi made serious allegations about what it described as a financial scam invol...
The Workmen of Karnataka Government Insurance Department, Bangalore Vs ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3298; 1999(3)KarLJ421
ORDER1. The workmen of K.G.I.D. Employees Union have presented this petition challenging the validity and legality of the award passed by the 1st respondent-Tribunal in Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1994, dated 26th September, 1997, urging various legal contentions.2. The various legal contentions urged in this petition need not be adverted to in this order as the Tribunal has rejected the reference on two main grounds, namely, the points of dispute referred by the State Government to it for its adjudication conflict with the demand made by the Union, therefore, the demand of the workmen is beyond the scope of the reference, hence the reference has to be treated as bad. The 2nd ground on which the reference is rejected by the 1st respondent-Tribunal is that the claim of the Union with regard to the payment of Bonus from 1980 and its demand is dated 8-9-1992 as could be noticed from the factual report submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the State Government for exercise of its power...
Smt. Cheluvamma and Another Vs. the Secretary, Karnataka State Electio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Kant258; ILR1999KAR1206; 1999(3)KarLJ426
ORDER1. The petitioners, in these petitions, are the Councillors of the 4th respondent-Dasarahalli Municipal Council.2. In these petitions, they have prayed for quashing the notification dated 20th of December, 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F, insofar as it relates to reservation of five seats to the Scheduled Castes in the State of Karnataka under Rule 13 of the Karnataka Municipalities (President and Vice-President) (Election) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'); and for quashing the notification dated 14th of August, 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C; and also for a further direction to the second respondent to reserve the office of the President and Vice-President in the 4th respondent-Municipal Council to the reserved category as provided under subsection (2-A) of Section 42 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. A few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of these petitio...
Subhash Mahadevappa Khanapur Vs. Madan Krishna Khanapur
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-11-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ129
ORDER1. Heard.2. This revision by defendant 3 in O.S. No. 63 of 1995 is directed against the order dated 21st of July, 1998 made by the Trial Court on I.A. No. 4 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC rejecting the same.3. The said suit was filed by the respondent for declaration and possession of the suit property. The plaintiff's suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the suit property was the joint family property. Indisputably, the parties are related to each other and they are the descendants of one late Mahadevappa. Plaintiffs contention in the plaint was that the suit property is his self-acquired property. Evidence of the parties has not yet commenced in the suit. The issues are stated to have been framed by the Trial Court. I.A. No. 4 was made by the petitioner praying for permission to carry out amendment in the written statement to the effect that he is entitled to a share in the suit property as co-owner thereof, the said property being the joint family pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »