Karnataka Court August 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.
Srinivas Vs. Vijaya S. Nayak
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-17-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4730; 2000(5)KarLJ543
ORDER1. Heard on merits by consent.2. The petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5523 of 1994 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, filed an application for striking down the evidence of D.W. 2-Shanthappa R. Nayak, husband of Vijaya S. Nayak-D.W. 1 who is plaintiff in O.S. No. 2666 of 1995, on the ground that when D.W. 1-Vijaya S. Nayak was examined as a witness in the case D.W. 2 her husband was present in Court and subsequently D.W. 2 was also examined. The proposed examination of D.W. 2 was not communicated to the petitioner herein at the time D.W. 1 was examined and it is stated that at the time D.W. 1 was examined D.W. 2 was present and his presence was objected to and the Trial Court did not uphold the objection and directed the plaintiff to go on with the case and that is how D.W. 1's evidence was affected by the presence of D.W. 2 in the Court hall. Thereafter, D.W. 2 was examined as witness in the case. At the stage, when D.W. 2 was to be cross-examined, the pet...
Mrs. Rajeevi Shedthi and Others Vs. the Secretary, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-13-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR787; 2000(2)KarLJ264
ORDER1. Sri S.N. Hatti, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice to respondents 4 to 6.2. The question that would arise for consideration in these petitions is as to the power of the 4th respondent-Deputy Commissioner to withdraw the Kumki privileges enjoyed by varghadars of certain agricultural lands.3. The petitioners in these petitions claim that they have been enjoying kumki privileges in respect of land measuring 1 acre 89 cents out of 7 acres 55 cents in Sy. No. 152/2-A1 of Kariyangala Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District as they are the varghadars of certain agricultural lands situated adjacent to the said lands referred to above.4. There is no dispute that the petitioners have been enjoying kumki rights in respect of lands referred to above. The Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the power delegated to him by the State Government under Section 195 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') passed an order dated...
T.T. Private Limited (Now Known as T.T.K. Prestige Ltd.) Vs. State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: [2003]133STC317(Kar)
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. Order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated September 1, 1995 have been assailed in these revision petitions. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of pressure cooker, pressure pans and other accessories thereto. The manufacturing units are situated in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. In respect of the assessment years 1986-87 to 1989-99, a dispute has arisen with regard to Aluminum separators and pressure pans as to whether they are liable to be taxed as parts and accessories of pressure cookers under the relevant entry of Second Schedule to the Act. Entry No. 10 from April 1, 1988 in Part P of Second Schedule has specified 'Pressure cookers, their parts and accessories'. It was liable to tax at 10 per cent from April 1, 1988 and prior to that entry at Serial No. 126 was also to the same effect. But the rate of tax from April 1, 1974 to March 30, 1986 was 8 per cent and thereafter 10 per cent. A claim was made by the petitioner under entry 45 of the Fifth Sched...
Smt. Ningamma and Another Vs. Chikkaiah and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Kant50; ILR1999KAR3389; 2000(1)KarLJ281
ORDER1. This civil revision petition raises important question touching jurisdiction of Court below and law whether the Court below in the context of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Sections 4 and 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, could direct plaintiff 2 and plaintiff 1 i.e., revision petitioners to subject themselves to medical examination and undergo the blood group test, in exercise of powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether the powers under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code could at all be exercised in such a case where plaintiff 2 and plaintiff 1 had hotly resisted and opposed the prayer for such direction being made as mentioned in the application.2. The facts of the case in nutshell are:That plaintiffs 1 and 2, who are revision petitioners 1 and 2 in this Court filed the suit for maintenance in the Court of the Munsiff at Mandya, against defendant-respondent 1. Defendant 1 has filed his written statement in the suit denyin...
Dr. R. Shashidar Vs. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR596; 2000(5)KarLJ523
ORDERTirath S. Thakur , J. 1. The challenge in this petition for a writ of certiorari is directed against a notification dated 17th May, 1997 issued by the respondent-University reserving a solitary post of Professor in the Postgraduate Department of English for the scheduled tribe candidates only. The petitioner who was at the relevant time working as a Reader in the said Department, has assailed the reservation on the ground that such a reservation was legally impermissible as the same would amount to making a 100% reservation in favour of scheduled tribe candidates against other category of candidates. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the question whether a single post available in the cadre could be reserved either directly or on rotational basis is no longer res integra in the light of the constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v Faculty Association and Others. He conte...
S and P Enterprises and Others Vs. Comissioner, Bangalore Mahanagara P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: ILR2000KAR421; 2001(1)KarLJ418
ORDER1. In all these petitions, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider the applications for renewal of their licence to carry on business (hereinafter referred to as 'the trade licence') and also to quash the endorsement given to each of the petitioners. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been carrying on business either in Restaurants or Pubs in the premises, which are the subject-matter of dispute in these petitions, for the last several years; and the respondents, without any justification, are refusing to renew their trade licences on the ground that the premises in question are situated in a cellar portion of the buildings. 3. Sri B.K. Sampath Kumar and Sri K.L. Manjunath, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that since the petitioners have been carrying on business in the premises in question for the last several years and the licences were granted to them to carry on business in the premises in q...
Aggarwal Granite Exports Limited, Bangalore Vs. South India Granite Co ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-06-1999
Reported in: 1999(6)KarLJ433
ORDER1. The original Company Petition No. 63 of 1997 was filed on 16-6-1997 and the petitioner had prayed for an order of winding up on the usual ground that the respondents have failed and neglected to discharge theirdebts and are incapable of doing so. The record indicates that this proceeding was dragged on for one and half years and the order sheet is quite eloquent. These winding up proceedings are virtually expeditious remedies and the law presupposes the fact that a party who is genuinely aggrieved will act in consonance with the spirit of the law. Where a winding up proceeding is dragged on by the petitioners themselves for one and half years at the admission stage itself, it is indicative of how serious the party is or rather how not very serious the party is. This is a field of litigation in which the Courts are over burdened and when the very party who approaches the Court displays an attitude of this type, it would be well within the framework of law to dismiss the petition...
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-05-1999
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ597Kant
1. This appeal is filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation assailing the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.2. The brief facts of the case are:The fifth respondent was appointed as a badli worker on November 22, 1974. On account of certain misconduct committed by him, his name was removed from the list of badli workers on May 27, 1977.The validity of the order was assailed by the workman before the Labour Court which by its order dated August 13, 1981 directed to restore the name of the fifth respondent in the list of badli workers. Assailing the said order, Writ Petition No. 7596/1982 was filed. The writ petition was dismissed on October 28, 1985 and Court directed that the fifth respondent is entitled to all the consequential benefits including reinstatement. Thereafter, workman's name was restored to Badli workers list on January 4, 1989. He reported for duty on April 5, 1989.3. After joining into service, the respondent No. 5 filed a petit...
G. Prakash and Another Vs. Dr. Mysore N. Shivaram
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR4476; 2000(4)KarLJ86
ORDERH.N. Narayan, J.1. These two revisions under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) are directed against the order of eviction granted by the Trial Judge under the provisions of Section 21(1)(h) of the Act.2. Certain undisputed facts in these two cases are as follows:Respondent-landlord is a reputed doctor settled in USA and has acquired citizenship there. He is a son of a doctor. His father is no more. The suit premises which is situated in the prime locality of Bangalore City at Sadashivanagar, consists of ground and first floors which is essentially a residential premises. The landlord's father died about ten years back bequeathing the property in his favour. Both the ground and first floors were allotted to the tenants by the Rent Controller and the petitioners-tenants came to be in possession of these two premises as tenants and they are residing therefor about a decade. The petitioner in HRRP No. 980 of 1998 is a businessman while the other ...
Yamunaiyya Vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Aug-04-1999
Reported in: ILR1999KAR3650; 1999(6)KarLJ497
ORDER1. Petitioner is an agriculturist residing at Adaki Village, Sedam Taluk. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, petitioner calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 318 of 1994, dated 29-3-1996, the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, in case No. SD/INM/REG/146/74-75, dated 30-9-1961, and the orders passed by Land Tribunal in case No. LRY/AP/TNC/3373/75-76, dated 29-11-1978. Petitioner further seeks for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by 4th respondent in favour of 6th respondent alienating the lands in question registered as document Nos. 191/97-98 and 192/97-98, dated 5-5-1997 as null and void.2. Facts in support of the reliefs is as under:Petitioner claims that he was cultivating lands measuring 19 acres and 12 guntas in Sy. No. 672, situate at Adaki Village, Sedam Taluk. He has produced record of rights for the years 1955 till 1958 to suggest that he w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »