Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-20-1994
Reported in : ILR1995KAR10; 1995(4)KarLJ118
ORDERMirdhe, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Uttara Kannada, Karwar dated 17.9.1980, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner with costs.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner fully and perused the records of the case.3. This C.R.P, was filed as Writ Petition in the first instance. Thereafter, by the order dated 16.6.1987 the Writ Petition came to be converted to C.R.P. The respondents No. 1 & 2 are represented by their Counsel, Respondents 3 & 4, are represented by the Government Advocate.4. It is not in dispute in this case that the Management of the respondent No. 1 is taken over by the respondent No. 3 and it is respondent No, 3 who is contesting this Petition. Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 remained absent The Government Advocate representing respondents 3 and 4 also remained absent. This Court adjourned the case more than once to enable the Government Advocate to submit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-07-1994
Reported in : AIR1995Kant24; ILR1994KAR1632; 1995(1)KarLJ616
ORDER1. The Revision-Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 10-9-1992 passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge, Bangalore, in H.R.C., No. 1469 of 1989, directing the petitioner, to vacate the suit premises within three months from the date of the said order, has approached this Court in this revision petition challenging its legality and correctness, on more than one ground.2. I have heard learned counsel on both sides.3. Before proceeding to consider the merits of the case, it is necessary to consider the application (I.A, No. 1) for condonation of delay of six days in filing this revision petition 4. This application has been'opposed by the respondent by filing statement of objections.5. Sri U.L.' Narayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision-petitioner, brought to my notice the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in support of the application. It is stated therein that against the order staying further proceedings in H.R.C. No. 1469 of 1989, the responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-13-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR1848
S.B. Majmudar, C.J.1. These five writ appeals are taken out by the common appellants/original writ petitioners challenging the order passed on December 21, 1993, by learned single Judge K. Shivashankar Bhat, rejecting the writ petitions of the appellants on the ground that there is availability of effective alternative remedy. The learned Judge has, however, observed that clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in individual case is not binding on the assessing authority nor the appellate authority. They are required to decide the question according to law. 2. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, in these common appeals, it is necessary to note a few introductory facts : 3. Introductory facts : The first appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling, inter alia, blended packet teas in Karnataka. The first appellant is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-17-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR741; 1994(38)KarLJ295
S.B. Majmudar, C.J 1. This Writ Appeal is taken out by the appellant original Writ petitioner, who is running a Cable TV and Dish Antenna operator's business. He is receiving signals from the satellite by way of dish antenna and then is transmitting the same through cables to various television sets, the subscribers of which get the benefit of reproduction of the signals on their TV sets and in which the programmes are transmitted to them by way of Dish Antenna and Cable TV. He also transmits signals of pre-recorded cassettes replayed through his V.C.R./V.C.P, so that the viewers can see the pictures on their T.V. sets as pre-recorded in those cassettes. The appellant charges Rs. 50/- each from his subscribers per month for enabling them to enjoy this benefit. The State of Karnataka introduced Section 4(c) to the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act'), which provided for levy of Entertainment Tax on the Cable T.V. and Dish operating establishments in the State as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-21-1994
Reported in : ILR1994KAR3152; 1995(1)KarLJ497
ORDERMohan Kumar, J. 1. These four Revision Petitions raise a common question and hence were heard together and are being disposed of by a Common Order. The petitioners herein were appointed as probationary teachers under the 1st respondent. The period of probation as per the appointment orders is two years. The date of appointment are as follows:i) Petitioner in CRP No. 2550/94 16-5-1992 (She commenced to work from 1-6-1992) ii) Petitioner in CRP No. 2551/94 1-8-1992 iii) Petitioner in CRP No. 2552/94 25-6-1992 (It is her case that she commenced to work from 1-6-1991) iv) Petitioner in CRP No. 2553/94 25-6-1992 (In her case the appointment order is dated 1-6-1992) By order dated 28-3-1994, i.e., before the completion of two years, their services were terminated with effect from 31-3-1994. This termination has been challenged by the petitioners by filing appeals before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were presented on 7-4-1994 and the Tribunal passed an interim order in...
Tag this Judgment!