Karnataka Court November 2004 Judgments
State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. ShabbiruddIn Nawaz
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR535
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The 3rd respondent applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi. The 3rd respondent did not consider the candidature on the ground that Petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. Aggrieved by the same the 3rd respondent filed Application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order at Annexure-A held that non-consideration of the case of the respondent is bad in law and directed the petitioners herein to consider his case for selection. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition.2. The impugned order is challenged placing reliance upon the Note to Rule 66 of the Karnataka Education Tribunal Services (Department of Public Instruction) (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2001. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent has not studied Kannada medium or language as first or second language and therefore he is not eligible for the post.3. The Administrative Tribunal considered the contention of th...
Tag this Judgment!Township Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-16-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR717; 2005(1)KarLJ385
ORDERRam Mohan Reddy, J.1. The owners of the agricultural lands in Sy. No. 39/2 measuring 18 guntas of Yelahanka Amanikere Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, offered the said property for sale. The petitioner, a non-agriculturist, agreed to purchase the lands, provided it secured the permission to divert the lands for use to residential purpose by the authorities, under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 (for short, 'Revenue Act'). The parties executed an agreement to sell, dated 28-3-2003, incorporating the aforesaid condition together with a stipulation that the subject-matter of conveyance would be converted land, the possession of which, is to deliver on execution and registration of the deed of conveyance. The landowners and the petitioner, on presenting the agreement to sell for registration, the 2nd respondent, by an order dated 28-3-2003, Annexure-B refused registration on the ground that registration of such a document was declared to be opposed to public polic...
Tag this Judgment!Bank Officers' and Officials' House Building Co-operative Society Limi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ245
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 11-6-2004 in Appeal No. 836 of 2000 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure-B and also the order dated 25-9- 2000 in dispute No. ARB/50/ABN/7/93-94 passed by the 1st respondent insofar as it relates to paying of interest, has presented this writ petition.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent being a member of the petitioner-Society, filed an application for allotment of a site and had paid the entire sital value. In spite of the same, the petitioner-Society has failed to allot a site in her favour. Hence, the 2nd respondent was constrained to issue a notice dated 26-2-1992 demanding refund of the amount paid by her. The said request has been rejected by the petitioner-Society and hence, the 2nd respondent raised a dispute Under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') before the 1st respondent...
Tag this Judgment!State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Ece Industries Limited
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-10-2004
Reported in: [2006]144STC605(Kar)
ORDERH.L. Dattu, J.1. These revision petitions are filed against the common order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the appeals filed by the assessee and the cross-appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 under Section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ('the KST Act', for short) and for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 under Section 12(3) of the Act and also the levy of penalty for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 under Section 12-A(1-A) of the Act.2. Briefly stated for the purposes of these revision petitions, the facts are :The respondent is a public limited company. It is engaged in the business of manufacture, supply and installation of lifts and elevators. The respondent-company has branches all over the country. It has its manufacturing unit for lifts and elevators at Ghaziabad, U.P. The respondent-company at Bangalore undertakes designing, manufacture, erection and commissioning of lifts and elevators according to the re...
Tag this Judgment!Gavadu and ors. Vs. Suresh Kallappa Makavi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ381
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 5th June 2000 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Khanapur at Khanapur in R.D.P. No. 5/1995, has presented the instant civil revision petition.2. The petitioner herein had filed O.S. No. 63/1972 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum for partition and separate possession. The said suit has been decreed holding that, the petitioner is entitled to 1/20th share of the schedule property. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum, the petitioner herein filed a Regular Appeal No. 18/ 1981 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Belgaum. The learned District Judge, Belgaum heard the Regular Appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum in O.S.No. 63/1972, allowing the 60/20th share out of all the schedule properties. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that, the respondents 1 and 2 herein claim to b...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Sathyanarayana Shetty Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-09-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)KarLJ398
ORDERD.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. Petitioner is a purchaser of a land granted in favour of a person belonging to Lambani community in terms of a grant order dated 3-3-1955, it is such a land which the petitioner has purchased in the year 1968 through a sale deed executed by the grantee on 23-4-1968.2. In respect of this transaction the legal heir of the original grantee one Sri Kuber Naika, 3rd respondent in this writ petition, claiming to be the grandson of the original grantee moved the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division, Davanagere, for action tinder the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The Assistant Commissioner registered the application, held an enquiry and passed an order dated 28-10-2002 inter alia holding that the applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste community; that the applicant had produced necessary evidence in this regard; that he is the grandson of the original grantee Sri Boodi ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanta Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-08-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC875; IV(2005)ACC598; ILR2005KAR1105
Chidananda Ullal, J.1. Heard Sri. Mahesh, the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is his complaint that the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 6,19,304/- instead of Rs. 4,90,220/-. and thereby making a difference of Rs. 1,29,084/-. Such difference had occurred for the simple reason that, when the deceased had 10 months to go before retirement, the Tribunal had taken 11 multiplier, flat, instead of applying lesser multiplier as he had only 10 months of service and after retirement and thereafter he were to get 50% of the Salary as pension and that, l/3rd of the annual income had been deducted towards personal expenses as the Tribunal normally does. It is a case of death and the claimants are, the widow and son. Since it is a case of death, I do not think it will make that big difference, in the matter of assessment of compensation, even if it is felt that there may be some error and thus, the compensation might have been marginally excess and on the higher side; nevertheless, from the point of ...
Tag this Judgment!The Karnataka Rajya Souhardha Sahakari Samyukta Sahakari Niyamitha, by ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: ILR2004KAR5106; 2005(1)KarLJ240
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the order at Annexure-D dated 1.10.2004 passed by the 1st respondent in No. RSR:SA:135;XAR- 04-05, in so far as appointing the administrator as returning officer for conducting the election of the 3rd respondent-Bank. Further to direct the administrator to conduct the election with the returning officer appointed by the petitioner.2. The only grievance made out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that, the petitioner is the Federal Co-operative as constituted under the Karnataka Souhardha Sahakari Act, 1997. The Federal Co-operative is the main coordinator and regulatory Body, constituted under Section 53 of the Act and the bye-laws of Federal Co- operative are binding on all the Co-operative Societies Registered under the Act, The 3rd respondent herein is a Souhardha Co-operative bank registered under the provisions of the Karnataka So...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Ravishankar Vs. Smt. Shobha Rani
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: AIR2005Kant123; ILR2005KAR391; 2005(1)KarLJ281
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. Though this matter is posted for orders, by the consent of learned Counsels for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing.2. The petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kolar (for short, 'Trial Court'), dated 21-6-2004, whereby the Trial Court has refused to take on record the written statement filed by the petitioner on the ground that it was filed beyond ninety days from the date of service of summons.3. The respondent herein instituted a suit as an indigent person under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short). By the order dated 18-3-2004 the Trial Court allowed him to sue as an indigent person. It is stated that after allowing the application to sue as an indigent person, the matter was posted on 12-4-2004 for filing the written statement. On that day, since the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was again posted on 21-6-2004. In the meantime, on 27-5-2004 the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rangappa and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Prl. Secretar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-05-2004
Reported in: ILR2005KAR128
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The 8th petitioner in W.P.No. 10590/2004 and 7th petitioner in W. P No. 10593/2004 are Co-operative Societies registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Rest of the petitioners in both the petitions are members of the respective Co- operative Societies.2. All the petitioners in both the petitions, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 30th September 1994 passed by the third respondent - Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore vide Annexure A, the order passed by the second respondent -Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore dated 7th June 1997 vide Annexure B and the order passed by first respondent - Principal Secretary to Government, Co-operation Department, Bangalore, dated 15th February 2002 vide Annexure C, have presented the instant Writ Petitions. Further, the petitioners in these petitions have prayed to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to car...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »