Karnataka Court October 2003 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.
Ajantha Caterers Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-2003
Reported in: [2004]138STC62(Kar)
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Petitioner M/s. Ajantha Caterers is challenging the notice at annexure B. Petitioner further seeks for a declaration declaring that the amended provision of Section 17(4)(i), by Karnataka Act No. 5 of 2001, in so far as it inserts the words 'hotelier or a restaurateur operating in the same premises or premises attached to a place where liquor including beer is served', is an unreasonable restriction and that it is in violation of Articles 14, 265 and 19(g) of the Constitution.2. Brief facts of the case are as under :Petitioner is having contract with East Cultural Association (Club) to run catering services. It has entered into an agreement with the club in terms of annexure-D. It has made over deposits to the club in terms of the agreement. It is registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('Act' for short). It serves food items and it is not supposed to serve liquor in the club premises. Club itself serves liquor to its member. No licence is obtained by...
K.R. Shenoy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: 2004(92)ECC298; 2003(158)ELT812(Kar); 2003(6)KarLJ396
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The petitioner-Shenoy is challenging an order dated 20-12-1994, Annexure-A, confirmed in Order Nos. 1058 to 1062 of 1998 in C.A. Nos. 211 to 215 of 1995 and C.A. No. 441 of 1997 and C. No. 814 of 1997 by respondent 3 (Annexure-B) in this petition. The petitioner states that the officer attached to the respondent 2 registered a case against the petitioner and others. According to the investigating agency, one M/s. Sheth International, attempted to export goods alleged to be 80 Danier polyester textures yarn packed in 50 cartons and addressed to Al-Mutaiwie General Trading, Dubai. The said goods were to be exported by ship MV EL NIEL from New Mangalore Port on 1-2-1994. The goods were boarded on the ship for sailing after completion of all the Customs export formalities. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the basis of the information seized all the 50 cartons and found the same to contain building bricks covered with coir of no commercial value. In t...
The Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Rep. by Its Registrar and ors ... Overruled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR80; (2004)IILLJ35Kant
Vishwanatha Shetty, J. 1. Since these appeals are directed against the common order made in the Writ Petition, these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common Order.2. The Appellant is Writ Appeal No. 7466 of 2000 is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37832 of 1999; the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 7461 of 2000 is the Petitioner Writ Petition No. 37817 of 1999; the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 7462 of 2000 is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37818 of 1999; the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 7463 of 2000 is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37819 of 1999; the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 7464 of 2000 is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37820 of 1999 and the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 7465 of 2000 is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37822 of 1999.3. In these appeals the appellants have called in question the correctness of the Order dated 25th October 2000 made in the Writ Petitions referred to above by the learned Single Judge. In the impugned order the learn...
The Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation V ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR162; 2004(1)KarLJ333; (2004)ILLJ945Kant
H.G. Ramesh, J.1. This appeal is by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation against the order dated 18-9-2001 passed on Employees' State Insurance Application No. 70 of 1994 by the Employees' State Insurance Court, Mangalore. The Employees' State Insurance Court by the impugned order, has allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by setting aside the order dated 26-6-1989 passed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation directing it to pay a contribution of Rs. 12,810.00 in respect of payments made to its employees towards encashment of leave.2. I have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties.3. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsels for the parties, the neat question of law that falls for determination is as to whether the payments made towards 'encashment of leave' would fall within the ambit of 'wages' as defined under Section 2(22) of the Act. It is relevan...
State of Karnataka, Paper Town Police Station Vs. Sheshadri Shetty and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: 2005CriLJ377; ILR2004KAR218
Saldanha, J. 1. We have heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Counsel who represents the respondents - accused. The facts of this case are rather distressing in so far as the prosecution alleges that pursuant to some communal disturbances in the town of Bhadravathi, on the evening of 21.8.1994 at about 8 P.M., a mob of approximately 200 to 300 persons are alleged to have decided to target the grocery store of one Mohammed Ibrahim. The police were informed about this and they rushed to the spot but it was not possible for them to avert the disaster because it does appear from the record that the mob had already set fire to the premises using kerosene, petrol and other inflammables. After warning the persons present there, the police opened fire in the air whereupon the entire mob dispersed and the persons are alleged to have run away. According to the prosecution, some of the participants were known to the police constables and to P.W. 8 who was the Sub-Inspector of P...
Damodar Rice Industries, Rep. by Its Managing Partner Vs. the State of ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR1021
ORDER, 1981 -- CLAUSE 11 --DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER -- Whether discretion is conferred in the matter of confiscation of the essential commodities seized. HELD -- When the power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner to confiscate the seized commodity as an enabling provision, the said provision also has to be understood as conferring discretion on him on the question whether the commodity seized should be confiscated, and if it is to be confiscated what should be the quantity or quantum of the commodity seized that is required to be confiscated. This decision he is required to take having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the gravity and nature of the contravention of the order committed and its serious impact on the public distribution system. The said discretion is required to be exercised reasonably and fairly.(C) ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 -- SECTIONS 3, 6A -- ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES (MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS, DISPLAY OF PR...
The Director, National Institute of Technology and ors. Vs. N.S. Harsh ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR4215
S.R. Nayak, J.1. All India Council for Technical Education, hereinafter shortly referred to as 'AICTE', in pursuance of a direction issued by a learned Single of this Court in ARUN AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., ILR 2001 KAR 1864 framed norms/guidelines for effecting change of course of students in the Engineering colleges in the beginning of 3rd semester - B.E. Courses and communicated the same by Notification dated 12th September, 2001. The guidelines read as under:'1. Branch change at the college level shall be carried out by the Director/Principal of the college.2. Facility of branch change at the IInd year (IIIrd semester) level shall be available only to meritorious students and shall not be considered as a matter of right.3. These guidelines shall be applicable to all institutions imparting Engineering education in the country including University, University Departments, RECS, autonomous institutes, aided as well as unaided institutions.4. Branch change is permitted a...
The Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Rep. by Its Registrar and ors ... Overruled
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-14-2003
Reported in: (2004)ILRNULL80; 2004(1)KCCRSN19; (2004)IILLJ35Kant
...
Savitri Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(6)KarLJ286
V.G. Sabhahit, J. 1. This appeal by writ petitioner in W.P. No. 29577 of 2003 is directed against the order dated 30-6-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition.2. The essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal are as follows:The appellant filed the writ petition alleging that she is the President of the Town Panchayat, Siddapur, Uttara Kannada District (hereinafter called as 'Town Panchayat') arraigned as respondent 3 in the writ petition. It is stated that Town Panchayat comprises of 13 elected Councillors, 3 nominated members and Member of Parliament and Legislative Assembly, totalling to 18. A requisition signed by 10 Councillors was submitted to move no confidence motion against the petitioner. The Chief Officer did not issue notice to MP and MLA. Notices were issued to Councillors and nominated members. In the meeting presided over by Vice-President, no confidence motion against petitioner was passed by 10 Councillors voting in f...
The Management of Sri Siddaganga Education Society and anr. Vs. S. Kum ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-13-2003
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4715
ORDERDattu, J.1. Since common question of fact and law are involved in all these petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed off by this common order.2. The employee as well as the Educational Institution are before this Court in these two Writ Petitions, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Additional District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal at Tumkur, in MA.(EAT) No. 1/90 dated 27.9.1994 and 21.3.1998 respectively.3. In Writ petition No. 42940/1999, filed by the management/ employer, they call in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal modifying the order passed by the disciplinary authority of the educational institution.4. In Writ Petition No. 6720/2000, the employee of the educational institution calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal in partly allowing the appeal filed by him.5. Facts in detail need not be noticed by me. It is suffice ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »